After nearly 25 years of fighting to reclaim their family's 22-acre property in Huntsville, Kevin and Robert Matthews believe their case may hinge on a key document that could quickly settle things in their favor while also costing several public officials their jobs.
The brothers have been preparing a $250,000,000 lawsuit against Madison County officials for their alleged roles in facilitating the taking of the Matthews' property on Winchester Road after their father died in 1997.
In January 2001, Circuit Court Judge E. Dwight Fay, Jr. approved the private sale of Matthews's land, ultimately creating the basis for the current occupants, including several retailers such as Aldi and CVS, to stake their claim based on Pierce Matthew's deed from 1948 — when he and his wife, Carrie Matthews, were given the land by her grandparents.
Attorneys for the Matthews Estate, Rick Kornis and Franklin Eaton, argue that, given that Peirce Matthews had died nearly four years prior, there was no joint title between Carrie Matthews and her daughter, Marzie Patton, and that Patton could not legally convey the deed to herself, the 2001 order is invalid and a "sham" concocted by Douglas C. Martinson, II, who acted as Patton's attorney.
"The property was never lawfully conveyed from Pierce Matthews estate in order for Marzie Patton and Carrie Matthews to have joint title," attorneys Kornis and Eaton said. "Joint title is the first necessary element required before a court can order a private sale. Then and only then the parties have to demonstrate the property cannot be equitably divided, then and only then can the Judge order an appraisal and allow the sale to proceed. Because they never had joint title, the private sale fails."
The Matthews case won a significant victory in April when Madison County Probate Judge Frank Barger ruled that all titles and deeds for the property after Pierce Matthew's 1948 deed were invalid and should be expunged from the record. Thus, any title claim from the current occupants was stripped, and land ownership reverted to the Matthews Estate.
Probate Judge Frank Barger's April ruling.
Barger's ruling was based on the arguments and findings made by Matthews's lawyers, including that, according to Circuit Clerk Debra Kizer, no record of a joint title, related appraisal report or clerk's title for the property existed and that Stewart Title could find "no records of ever insuring the property for the alleged current owners."
"Clerk Kizer's disclosure is what changed the entire nature of this case. Without her putting that information on the record we'd never been able to argue the deeds were void. The Madison County courthouse was playing hide the ball from us," Eaton and Kornis said.
However, on May 20, Barger set aside his April order, reversing his decision to restore Matthews's claim. This came after Martinson and other defendants made an emergency motion for Judge George C. Day to enforce his August 2023 ruling denying Matthews' request to nullify the defendants' deeds after 2001. The defendants argued that attorneys for Matthews sought the April ruling ex parte and that the probate court lacked jurisdiction. Judge Day granted the emergency motion and ruled that the Matthews Estate must file to reverse Barger's April order.
Attorneys for the Matthews Estate asked for clarification on the emergency order. They ultimately refused to ask for a reversal, claiming it would be unlawful given the claims made by Kizer and Stewart Title and the fact that expunged documents could not be resubmitted into the record.
Kornis and Eaton said they have yet to be served an official certified copy of Barger's May ruling undoing his April decision. The lawyers said it took six months to hear from Judge Barger via email, where he stated he had signed the order and entered it into the Minute Book on May 21. Alleged copies of the order can be found on the Madison County Probate Office's online database, but they do not contain the official probate seal and correct book number and date, meaning they would not carry the weight of law, according to Kornis and Eaton, who went as far as to speculate that the non-Minute Book copies could be forgeries. They believe the defendants, Judge Day and Barger, held ex parte communications to devise a way to overturn the April order, which they hold to be the last lawful order in the case, and that the Matthews Estate is, therefore, the rightful owner of the land.
"The various court filings demonstrate why obtaining a valid stamped copy of Probate Judge Barger's May 20 Order is so vital," the plaintiffs' attorneys said. "The ability to appeal an order is dependent upon the order first being issued and recorded in the case summary. That starts the appeal timeline. Probate Court orders can only be appealed to the Circuit Court or the Supreme Court. It is our opinion they continue to intentionally hide the order to prevent us from appealing the void order."
The non-Minute Book copy of Barger's May order.
1819 News contacted Judge Barger about his April and May orders, asking why he reversed his motion and whether Kornis and Eaton's arguments were accurate. Barger said he could not comment on ongoing cases.
"As a sitting judge, I do not discuss cases before the Court outside of a proper hearing or any pending litigation as the law prohibits such," he said.
To connect with the story's author or comment, email daniel.taylor@1819news.com or find him on X and Facebook.
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
