In all other cases in which an appeal is taken under the provisions of this division, the appellant, or someone for him, must give security for the costs of such appeal, to be approved by the probate judge or the clerk of the circuit court, as the case may be, and the names of such sureties must be certified with the record to the appellate court, but the filing of security for costs is not a jurisdictional prerequisite. If the appellant fails to prosecute his appeal or the judgment is not reversed or is entered against him for a less amount than the judgment of the court from which the appeal is taken, execution may issue against him and such sureties for the costs of the appeal.
(Code 1852, §1898; Code 1867, §2257; Code 1876, §3967; Code 1886, §3647; Code 1896, §464; Code 1907, §2862; Code 1923, §6121; Code 1940, T. 7, §782.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 1980–2018 · leading case:
Lumpkin v. State, 171 So. 3d 599 (Ala. 2014).
Lumpkin v. State, 171 So. 3d 599 (Ala. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, Finch further recognized that § 12-22-25, Ala.Code 1975, explicitly provides that “ ‘the filing of security for costs is not a jurisdictional prerequisite’ ” to an appeal to a circuit court of a probate court decision.”
Womack v. the Est. of Womack, 826 So. 2d 138 (Ala. 2002).
· cites it 2× “690 (1856), was abrogated by Ala.Code 1975, § 12-22-25, which states in part that ‘the filing of security for costs is not a jurisdictional prerequisite.”
Penick v. Southpace Mgmt., Inc., 121 So. 3d 1015 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “’ Our Supreme Court has analogized probate court cases in analyzing district court cases. See, e.g., Finch, supra.”
Wilson v. Se. Alabama Med. Ctr., 187 So. 3d 1165 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015).
“Section 12-22-25 requires security for costs in appeals such as this one, but specifically states that ‘the filing of security for costs is not a jurisdictional prerequisite,’ By the same token, although payment of a filing fee is required, we do not find a jurisdictional defect…”
Rogers v. Hansen, 187 So. 3d 1108 (Ala. 2015).
· cites it 2× “However, as Hansen correctly argues, although giving security for costs is permissible for other appeals under § 12-22-25, Ala.Code 1975, 1 *1110 § 12-22-24 does not permit this Court to take an appeal “from any order of the probate court removing an executor or administrator”…”
Ala. Medicaid Agency v. Brooks, 262 So. 3d 685 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018).
“) Section 43-2-354 provides that a party aggrieved by a judgment of a probate court regarding a disputed claim against an estate may appeal to the circuit court for a trial de novo.”
Ala. Medicaid Agency v. Brooks, 262 So. 3d 685 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018).
“) Section 43-2-354 provides that a party aggrieved by a judgment of a probate court regarding a disputed claim against an estate may appeal to the circuit court for a trial de novo.”
Frazier v. Floyd, 699 So. 2d 1263 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “690 (1856), was abrogated by Ala. Code 1975, § 12-22-25, which states in part that ‘the filing of security for costs is not a jurisdictional prerequisite.”
Elsworth v. Rini, 388 So. 2d 953 (Ala. 1980).
“We are unimpressed with the argument that the pleading filed by Rini in the circuit court cannot be treated as an appeal from the final order of the probate court admitting the lost will to probate.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.