Johnson and Barnes v. Mayers, [Ms. SC-2025-0297, June 27, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). The Court (Sellers, J.; Stewart, C.J., and Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, Cook, McCool, and Lewis, JJ., concur; Shaw, J., concurs in the result) affirms the Lamar Circuit Court’s judgment declaring that Alabama’s antilapse statute, § 43-8-224, Ala. Code 1975 does not apply to the will of Samuel D. Johnson. The will devises Johnson’s entire estate to his father and, if his father predeceases him, equally to four named siblings. The will further states that if “none of such persons shall survive me,” the estate passes to the testator’s “nearest living heirs.” At the time of Johnson’s death, only one sibling, Judith Mayers, survived.
The Court holds that the will’s survivorship language and express contingent devise reflect a clear intent to override the default antilapse provision. The statute only applies where a testator fails to require survivorship or designate contingent beneficiaries. Because the will does both, the statute does not apply, and Mayers is entitled to inherit the entire estate. Ms. **9-14.
The Court distinguishes Norwood v. Barclay, 298 So. 3d 1051 (Ala. 2019), and Shirley v. Dawkins, 369 So. 3d 127 (Ala. 2022), where the wills lack both survivorship language and alternative devise provisions. Ms. *13.