The legal battle over a 22-acre property in Huntsville continues as attorneys lock horns over a court opinion more than 20 years old.
Brothers Kevin and Robert Matthews claim their family’s land on Winchester Road was stolen from them by dubious legal maneuvering in 2001 when a “sham” court proceeding ended in the property being sold via the creation of a clerk’s title using a "dead man's deed." This set in motion further subdividing and selling of the land on which several major retailers now reside.
However, the clerk’s title was never properly issued, the brothers argue, thus undercutting the current occupiers’ claim to the property. The Matthews cite a letter from Madison County Circuit Clerk Debra Kizer sent on Oct. 25, 2023, to their attorneys, Rick Kornis and Franklin Eaton, who said no such clerk’s deed existed in the case’s court record. This Kizer letter ultimately enabled Kornis and Eaton to obtain a ruling from Madison County Probate Judge Frank Barger that all titles and deeds for the property after Pierce Matthew's 1948 deed, when Kevin and Robert Matthews' parents inherited the land, were invalid and should be expunged from the record. That ruling was issued in April 2024 but later rescinded the following May due to the objections made by the defendant-petitioners, including County Conservator Douglas C. Martinson, II, and representatives of the businesses occupying that land.
The defense has argued that the Matthews have no legal footing in this case given the final judgments issued in their favor in January 2001 by Circuit Judge E. Dwight Fay, Jr., approving the original sale and clerk’s deed, and in August 2023 by Circuit Court Judge George Day, upholding the 2001 decision and directing Barger to rescind the April order. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed Day’s ruling without opinion in June 2024.
The defense claims the issue of the clerk’s title and Kizer letter has been argued by the Matthews before and was rejected by the court’s two final judgments and enforcement order. The order “enjoined, prohibited and restrained” the Matthews and their counsel “from any and all efforts or activities, whether directly or indirectly, to enforce [] in any manner whatsoever, the Probate Order, and from having any further communication or contact with any Defendant, and with any tenant (including, but not limited to, store managers or other employees of such tenant) of any Defendant, relating in any way to the Probate Order or to the enforcement thereof.”
Undeterred, the plaintiffs have continued pressing the issue of the missing clerk's title and hold Barger’s April 2024 order expunging previous titles as the last valid ruling issued in the case, leaving no doubt, in their opinion, that the land should be restored to the Matthews Estate.
The defense has asked the court to sanction Matthews and their counsel and find them in contempt for ignoring the final judgments and enforcement order. The defense is asking the plaintiffs to be forced to pay the defense’s attorney fees and court costs and to comply with the court’s final judgment.
“Plaintiff-Respondents stand by their mischaracterizations of previous Orders – including unsubstantiated allegations of forgery and conspiracy among judges, court personnel, and attorneys alike – and continue to argue ‘that no joint deed exists between the parties to the Private Sale’ and ‘therefore, no jurisdiction existed in Judge Day’s Court.’ However, Plaintiff-Respondents ignore that these arguments were made in the Underlying Action, carefully considered by Judge Day, and soundly rejected in the Final Judgment. And while Judge Day’s Final Judgment was binding and enforceable upon its entry, and unquestionably due to be obeyed by Plaintiff-Respondents and their attorneys, it was affirmed, and thus determined to be correct, by the Alabama Supreme Court. Likewise, Plaintiff-Respondents contend that the Clerk of the Madison County Circuit Court “determined there is no record of the Private Sale” and “[t]herefore, the Private Sale never happened.” But again, Plaintiff-Respondents made this argument at the trial court level, and on appeal, to no avail.”
Kornis and Eaton argue that they can’t ignore an order if it isn’t valid in the first place. In their opinion, supported by the Kizer letter, since the clerk’s deed was never issued or certified, the 2001 order is invalid, as are subsequent rulings, including the Supreme Court’s opinion, which they claim was based on an incomplete, non-valid record.
In an amended response to the defense writ of mandamus to revoke the letters of administration issued to Kevin Matthews in June 2024 regarding his father's estate, Kornis and Eaton restated their arguments against the allegedly void orders and jurisdictional issues.
“The 2001 Circuit Court judgment is void because it relies on a Clerk’s Deed that, per Circuit Clerk Kizer’s certification, does not exist. Alabama law is unequivocal: ‘A judgment is void if it is procured by fraud, and a void judgment may be set aside at any time.’ The missing deed constitutes a fundamental defect, stripping the judgment of preclusive effect. Likewise, the Supreme Court’s 2024 affirmance is invalid. Ala. R. App. P. 10(a) mandates a complete, certified record for appellate review. The Circuit Clerk’s failure to provide this record deprived the Supreme Court of jurisdiction, rendering its affirmance a nullity. Without valid prior judgments, res judicata cannot apply. The probate proceedings address a void judgment and an unresolved title defect, both within the Probate Court’s purview, as established above.”
Defendants argue, however, in a March 10 joint response to plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss that a copy of the January 8, 2001 Clerk’s Deed was included in the record before the courts along with 71 other documents. Still, Matthews’ attorneys claim that the deed from the private sale was never certified since the sister, Marzie Patton, was removed as the personal representative of the Pierce Matthews Estate three days prior, making the clerk's deed an invalid forgery.
“They crumble under the weight of a fatal flaw... Those 71 documents are uncertified, unauthenticated, and, by Clerk Kizer’s own affirmation, incapable of certification,” the attorneys stated in an oral argument draft against the defendant’s motion for sanctions. “She has stated unequivocally that no official record from the Private Sale case—known formally as the Estate of Pierce Matthews, Case No. 2288—will be certified. Without certification, these documents are inadmissible as a matter of law, violating both our Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Evidence.”
On March 20, they filed a motion to compel the defense to “produce certified evidence of their title” to the Winchester Road property.” On March 24, they sent letters to Kizer and Madison County Attorney Jeff Rich demanding the removal “of the forged Clerk’s Deed and all downstream deeds from public records,” and access to defendant communications and release of funds from the private sale case to Kevin Matthews.
“For over 26 years, Madison County officials, including County Conservator Douglas Martinson, II, have exploited a forged Clerk’s Deed recorded in Deed Book 986, Page 520 to undermine my clients’ property rights. Your office has enabled this misconduct by supporting illegal occupiers and failing to address the County’s role in perpetuating this fraud, by allowing the forged Clerks Deed to remain in the Probate records, which has and continues to cause irreparable harm to the Matthews Estates and heirs. The forged deed, lacking any supporting records from the alleged petition for sale for division in case 47-CV-1999-2288 as confirmed by Clerk certifications dated September 20, 2023, and October 25, 2023, has allowed the County to illegally assess and collect ad valorem taxes on the [property].”
The attorneys further claim in the letter to Rich that various personal items and a "large sum of cash" related to the property have still not been accounted for and that, due to "the County's misconduct," the Matthews family cemetery — "home to over 70 Native American/African American graves" — was destroyed. They also allege that Kevin Matthews has been falsely arrested as retaliation for pursuing the case and that Martinson & Beason, P.C., hid a conflict of interest by representing one of the Marzie Matthews in 2001 after having represented a brother in a previous matter related to the property.
Kornis and Eaton asked for a response to the letters by March 31, or they plan to “escalate this to federal authorities.” The defense had until last Friday to respond to the plaintiffs’ latest court motions. Circuit Court Judge Gregory Reid has set a final hearing on the defendant’s motions for sanctions for the morning of July 7.
To connect with the story's author or comment, email [email protected] or find him on X and Facebook.
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
