Ex parte Stephens, [Ms. 1190457, Aug. 28, 2020] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2020). The Court (Mendheim, J.; Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Stewart, and Mitchell, JJ., concur) issues a writ of mandamus to the Coffee Circuit Court which had denied Berry Stephens’s motion to appoint an administrator ad litem for the estate of his mother, Louise Gennuso, which had been removed to circuit court. Following Louise’s death, the personal representative, Youngblood, had transferred to herself the funds in Louise’s bank accounts owned jointly with Youngblood. The Court holds
[T]he facts showed that Youngblood, the personal representative of Gennuso’s estate, had an interest adverse to the estate. Therefore, under § 43-2-250, the circuit court had a duty to appoint an administrator ad litem for the estate, but it failed to do so. See, e.g., Loving v. Wilson, 494 So. 2d 68,70 (Ala. 1986) (observing that, “[s]ince all of the elements necessary to require an appointment of an administrator ad litem are present, it was error for the trial court not to appoint one for each of the estates”); Cannon v. Birmingham Tr.& Sav. Co., 212 Ala. 316, 319, 102 So. 453, 456 (1924)(stating that an identical predecessor statute to § 43-2-250 “makes it the duty of the court, in any proceeding where the personal representative is interested adversely to the estate, to appoint an administrator ad litem”).