Kornis and Eaton emergency motion response

AlaFile E-Notice
47-CV-2022-901126.01
Judge: GREGORY J REID
To: PAUL RICKY KORNIS
[email protected]
NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA
ROBERT MATTHEWS ET AL V. DOUGLAS C. MARTINSON II ET AL

47-CV-2022-901126.01
The following matter was FILED on 12/20/2024 7:11:38 PM
C001 MATTHEWS ROBERT

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT TO PENDING MOTION
[Filer: KORNIS PAUL RICKY]
Notice Date: 12/20/2024 7:11:38 PM
DEBRA KIZER
CIRCUIT COURT CLERK
MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA
100 NORTHSIDE SQUARE
HUNTSVILLE, AL, 35801
256-532-3390
DOCUMENT 95
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
12/20/2024 7:11 PM
STATE OF ALABAMA Revised 3/5/08 Case No. 47-CV-2022-901126.01
Unified Judicial System CIRCUIT COURT OF
47-MADISON District Court Circuit Court MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA
CV202290112601
DEBRA KIZER, CLERK
CIVIL MOTION COVER SHEET
ROBERT MATTHEWS ET AL V. DOUGLAS C. Name of Filing Party:C001 - MATTHEWS ROBERT
MARTINSON II ET AL
Name, Address, and Telephone No. of Attorney or Party. If Not Represented. Oral Arguments Requested
PAUL RICKY KORNIS
4000 EAGLE POINTE CORP. DRIVE
BIRMINGHAM, AL 35242
Attorney Bar No.: KOR004
TYPE OF MOTION
Motions Requiring Fee Motions Not Requiring Fee
Default Judgment ($50.00) Add Party
Joinder in Other Party's Dispositive Motion Amend
(i.e.Summary Judgment, Judgment on the Pleadings, Change of Venue/Transfer
orother Dispositive Motion not pursuant to Rule 12(b))
($50.00) Compel
Judgment on the Pleadings ($50.00) Consolidation
Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative Continue
SummaryJudgment($50.00) Deposition
Renewed Dispositive Motion(Summary Designate a Mediator
Judgment,Judgment on the Pleadings, or other Judgment as a Matter of Law (during Trial)
DispositiveMotion not pursuant to Rule 12(b)) ($50.00)
Disburse Funds
Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56($50.00)
Extension of Time
Motion to Intervene ($297.00)
In Limine
Other
Joinder
pursuant to Rule ($50.00)
More Definite Statement
*Motion fees are enumerated in §12-19-71(a). Fees Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)
pursuant to Local Act are not included. Please contact the New Trial
Clerk of the Court regarding applicable local fees.
Objection of Exemptions Claimed
Local Court Costs $ 0 Pendente Lite
Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss
Preliminary Injunction
Protective Order
Quash
Release from Stay of Execution
Sanctions
Sever
Special Practice in Alabama
Stay
Strike
Supplement to Pending Motion
Vacate or Modify
Withdraw
Other
pursuant to Rule (Subject to Filing Fee)
Check here if you have filed or are filing contemoraneously Signature of Attorney or Party
with this motion an Affidavit of Substantial Hardship or if you
Date:
/s/ PAUL RICKY KORNIS
are filing on behalf of an agency or department of the State,
county, or municipal government. (Pursuant to §6-5-1 Code
12/20/2024 7:06:25 PM
of Alabama (1975), governmental entities are exempt from
prepayment of filing fees)
*This Cover Sheet must be completed and submitted to the Clerk of Court upon the filing of any motion. Each motion should contain a separate Cover Sheet.
**Motions titled 'Motion to Dismiss' that are not pursuant to Rule 12(b) and are in fact Motions for Summary Judgments are subject to filing fee.
DOCUMENT 96
12/20/2024 7:11 PM
47-CV-2022-901126.01
CIRCUIT COURT OF
DEBRA KIZER, CLERK
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA
Robert Matthews, an individual, )

James Matthews, an individual, )
Kevin Matthews, an individual, )
Elizabeth Townsend, an individual, )
Loutricia Quinones, an individual, )
Wilma Burton, an individual, )
William Pierce Matthews, an )
individual, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) 47-CV-2022-901126.01
)
Douglas C. Martinson, II, an )
Individual, Martinson & )
Beason, P.C., An Alabama )
Professional Corporation, )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MATTHEWS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR ORDER SUPPLEMENTING THE COURT’S MAY
14, 2024, ORDER TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF AND
COMMAND OBEDIENCE THE COURT’S FINAL JUDGMENTOF
AUGUST 31, 2023, SO AS TO PREVENT INTERFERENCE WITH
SAME ON THE PART OF PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR
ATTORNEYS
And
RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT
OF DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS’ EMERGENCY MOTION AND
REQUEST THAT COURT, IN LIGHT OF RECENT CONDUCT BY
PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR COUNSEL, GRANT IMMEDIATE
RELIEF TO COMMAND OBEDIENCE TO THE COURT’S FINAL
JUDGMENT OF AUGUST 31, 2023
1
DOCUMENT 96
The Matthews submit their initial Response to the “Emergency

Motions” concurrently with this Supplemental Response. The initial
Response addresses solely the subject matter jurisdiction issue
concerning the ability of the Matthews siblings to pursue the Quiet Title
case and other reasons the Orders of the master case are void. This
Supplement directly addresses the arguments raised by the Petitioners
in their Motions and raises a constitutional bar to the relief requested in
the Motions. Petitioners ask this Court to engage in acts of prior
restraint which this Court lacks the authority to undertake. The
Petitioners’ Motion and Supplemental Submission are due to be
dismissed without more. In further opposition to the Emergency Motion
and the Petitioners’ Supplement filed on December 16, 2024, the
Matthews state as follows:
INTRODUCTION
The Petitioners Motion for Emergency Motion for Entry of Order

Supplementing the Court’s May 14, 2024 Order to Protect the Integrity
of and Command Obedience to the Court’s Final Judgment of August 31,
2023, so as To Prevent Interference With Same On The Part of Plaintiffs
And Their Attorneys qualifies as an episode of the Twilight Zone. (Doc.
66 to 75) Remember the Twilight Zone, where the character entered a
world of fantasy or illusion. Petitioners have certainly entered that zone
where they project ownership via records the Circuit Court Clerk has
certified do not exist, the Tax Assessor’s has no record of and the title
insurance company, Stewart Title, allegedly insuring their title has
certified under oath it has no records of.
2
DOCUMENT 96
Where Petitioners blame the Respondents for the State of Alabama

determining they possess no valid title to the Matthews Family Land.
Madison County Circuit Court Clerk Debra Kizer, the custodian of court
records, pursuant to 35-6-102 of the Alabama Private Sale law, is
responsible for conducting a “private sale” and the “transfer of title” by a
Clerk’s Deed certified the Court’s files do not contain any of the
statutorily required elements Petitioners claim title through. Ex. “1”
Clerk Kizer as an agent of the State of Alabama informed all parties to
the master case specifically including Circuit Court Judge George Day,
the Alabama Supreme Court, Defendant-Petitioner’s counsel, that the
former Madison County Clerk Billy Harbin did not execute a Clerk’s Deed
to transfer title to Defendant-Petitioners in 2001. Id.
Clerk Kizer’s research further determined the Clerk’s file did not
contain any evidence of a joint deed from which to Circuit Court could
have obtained jurisdiction to ever order a private sale between Marzie
Matthews Patton and Carrie Matthews (a statutory prerequisite for the
Court to have jurisdiction to order a private sale). Both Marzie Matthews
Patton and Carrie Matthews both disputed and refuted they authorized
anyone file a petition with the Madison County Circuit Court to request
a Private Sale. (Doc. 439, 47-CV-1999-2288)
The Madison County Tax Assessor’s Office, another agent for the
State of Alabama provided additional support to Clerk Kizer’s
determination that there was never a transaction between the two in the
Madison County tax records that evidenced they held a joint deed
together, again, a prerequisite to a Circuit Court having jurisdiction to
order a “Private Sale”. Further, Assessor Casey Williams confirmed the
3
DOCUMENT 96
Circuit Court could have never obtained jurisdiction because there is no

record of any alleged “joint Deed” as required by Alabama 40-22-1, which
states:
(a) Except as set out in subsection (b), no deed,
bill of sale, or other instrument of like character
which conveys any real or personal property
within this state or which conveys any interest in
such property shall be received for record unless
the privilege or license tax is paid prior to the
instrument being offered for record as provided in
subsection (c),
This fact is further supported because the two never paid ad valorem
taxes, under a joint deed, which is a requisite tax based on the value of a
transaction of real estate. In other words, Ad Valorem taxes are based on
the assessed value of the item being taxed. This tax is not assessed when
one does not possess title to property as Certified by Clerk Kizer and Tax
Assessor Casey Williams.
Beyond this jurisdictional requirement, Clerk Kizer’s Certification
determined the Court’s record is devoid of the other procedural
requirements that must be satisfied before a court can obtain jurisdiction
to order a private sale, as established by the Alabama Legislature. Craig
v. Javine, 432 So. 2d 1304, 1307 (Ala. Civ. App. 1983). When Clerk Kizer
informed Judge Day that the Circuit Court establish the Circuit Court
never obtain jurisdiction to order a private sale he should have dismissed
the case for lack of jurisdiction. Raper v. Belk, 276 Ala. 370 (Ala. 1964).
As explained in Respondent’s Response title to the Matthews
Family Land remains with the Estate of Pierce Matthews and Estate of
Carrie Hayden Matthews. Alvarez v. Warner, 201 Ala. 50 (Ala. 1917);
4
DOCUMENT 96
Coastal States Life Insurance v. Gass, 278 Ala. 656, 659 (Ala. 1965);
Smelser v. Trent, 698 So. 2d 1094, 1096 (Ala. 1997) quoting Layton v.
Hamilton, 214 Ala. 329, 330, 107 So. 830, 830-31 (1926) (citations
omitted); Trotter v. Brown, 232 Ala. 147, 150 (Ala. 1936); § 35-6-100, Ala.
Code 1975. It seems so simple, yet Petitioners want to distract the Court
so it will overlook the fact there can be no private sale where the Circuit
Court Clerk certifies there are no records of a valid private sale. Ex. 1
The record is clear, it was the State officials, not Respondents, who
determined there was never a Private Sale to which Petitioners can rely
on based upon their own official records. Dawkins v. Hutto, 222 Ala. 132
(Ala. 1930). Instead of accepting reality, as pointed out by Clerk Kizer,
Petitioner’s insist their deeds can somehow rely on a dead man’s dead as
source of title. Ex. “2”. Alvarez v. Warner, 201 Ala. 50 (Ala. 1917); Coastal
States Life Insurance v. Gass, 278 Ala. 656, 659 (Ala. 1965); Smelser v.
Trent, 698 So. 2d 1094, 1096 (Ala. 1997) quoting Layton v. Hamilton, 214
Ala. 329, 330, 107 So. 830, 830-31 (1926) (citations omitted); Trotter v.
Brown, 232 Ala. 147, 150 (Ala. 1936). That’s not what the law holds. Id.
It is important to note, the undersigned counsel sought information
from Clerk Kizer in September 2023, that would allay his concerns
regarding compliance to Rule 28(a)(3) A.R.A.P. when preparing the
Matthews’ appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court. Ex. 1. It was this
request for information and documentation that precipitated Clerk
Kizer’s research and ultimate determination that there were no private
sale records as alleged by the Defendants. The undersigned took two
extra steps to counter the long-standing assertions of the Petitioner’s
claim to valid title was via the Clerk’s Deed. One, the undersigned
5
DOCUMENT 96
verified there was never a real property transaction involving Marzie

Patton and Carrie Matthews, necessary to establish a joint deed. Second,
the undersigned subpoenaed Stewart Title to verify whether it insured
Petitioner’s alleged title. Stewart Title’s certified response, was they
have never insured Petitioner’s recorded deeds. Ex. “3” Petitioner’s filed
various documents in the master case containing the stamp, reference or
otherwise identify Stewart Title to demonstrate to the Court they possess
valid title. (Doc. 491 and 497 in master case). Stewart Title’s sworn
Certification taken with the State of Alabama’s certified position
demonstrate otherwise.
Petitioners want the Court to join them in that place of projection and
total inversion of the truth, in order to believe they are vested with valid
title via a dead man’s deed. The Court should not fall for the mesmerizing
trance. Do not get distracted by the shiny object they will certainly wave
in front of your eyes and remembered the laws of this great State and the
United States demonstrate Petitioners are not entitled to any relief from
the Court. Petitioner’s entire argument is balanced upon the May 20,
2024 Order Petitioners and their Counsel obtained through ex parte
communications with the Probate Judge to deprive Plaintiff-Respondents
of their Family Land by openly violating Plaintiff-Respondents’ due
process rights to continue their theft of the Matthews Family Land.
While in the Petitioners Twilight Zone always remember a void
order is a nullity without any legal effect1; an order from the Probate
Court cannot be collaterally attacked or impeached, unless plainly void
1 Ex parte Full Circle Distribution, L.L.C., 883 So. 2d 638, 643 (Ala. 2003).
6
DOCUMENT 96
or made without jurisdiction2; an order obtained by ex parte

communications is void ab initio3; “an attorney cannot be allowed to state
anything as a fact as to which there is no evidence”;4 the Court cannot
consider statements in brief not supported by the record5; and orders
entered by a court without jurisdiction are void and can disregarded
without liability to process for contempt.6
ARGUMENT
The Petitioners have no interest in the Property
owned by the Matthews.
1. The Petitioners claim title to the property. In their

December 16 Supplement they hold forth that the Matthews acted with:
Rick Kornis and Franklin Eaton (“Kornis
and Eaton”), in continued flagrant disregard
of the Court’s Final Judgment in 47-CV-
2022-901126.00, as affirmed by the Supreme
Court of Alabama, and injurious [sic] to the
rights of the Defendants-Petitioners as
established by this Court’s Final Judgment.
(Supplemental Submission p. 1.)
2. But the Petitioners can show no ruling which conveys title to

them. There is no ruling which takes title from the Matthews. Judge
Day did neither.7 He did not have the Matthews’ title before him so as to
2 Black v. Seals, 474 So.2d 696, 697 (Ala. 1985) citing Smith v. Mitchell, 114 So.2d 149 (Ala. 1959).
3 Ex parte Third Generation, 855 So.2d 489, 492 (Ala. 2003).
4 Johnson v. State, 272 Ala. 633, 637 (Ala. 1961).
5 Logan v. O'Barr, 271 Ala. 94, 100 (Ala. 1960).
6 Walker v. City of Birmingham, 279 Ala. 53, 61 (Ala. 1966).
7 The Petitioners are given to misconstruing prior decisions in this action. They interpreted Judge
Pride Tompkins’ orders, which rejected the Private Sale since it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, as
entering a ruling which AFFIRMED Judge Fay’s January 5, 2001, Order. Then they extended the
absurdity by writing that the Court of Civil Appeals and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed
7
DOCUMENT 96
rule on it. Therefore, in order to justify the imposition of any sanctions

in this case, the Petitioners must first explain to this Court how they
have any interest in the Property of the Matthews and the extent of that
interest. Let us repeat: the Petitioners have no title. They have no proof
of title--not even colorable title--so as to enable them to file their own
quiet title action.8
3. Nevertheless, they have Supplemented their Submission with
claims that the Matthews and their counsel have violated this Court’s
status quo request, the August 31, 2023, final order and the May 14
Order, all because counsel and the Matthews were quoted by the writer
of the 1819 News article.9
4. The only basis upon which they can claim title is through the
deed of Mr. Pierce Matthews, who died on November 12, 1997. The
Clerk’s Deed, through which they claim title, was not created until
January 8, 2001. Ex. 2. Every sentient lawyer knows that a dead man
cannot covey title. Therefore, the Petitioners cannot base their claims of
the affirmation of Judge Fay. All of which is pure bunk. Now, unsurprisingly, they claim that
Judge Day’s Order has a reach so broad that it took title from the Matthews and gave title to
them. Again, it seems rather basic and impossible that Judge Day made such a ruling since he
never had the Matthews title before him. Further, he granted a Motion to Dismiss filed by the
Defendants – they never sought affirmative relief. Finally, the Matthews told Judge Day that he
should dismiss the quiet title action well before the Defendants determined the basis for the
request.
8
An interested party cannot file a quiet title action in Alabama without being able to prove, at a
minimum that it has “colorable title.” Since the Petitioners don’t have that level of proof, they
could not file a lawsuit to have title quieted in them. (See Alabama Code § 6-6-560 (1975).)
9
As we explain later in this Reply, the Petitioners are so unconcerned for the First Amendment
rights of the Matthews, they obviously have never envisioned a prior restraint that was
obnoxious to the First Amendment. This Court is bound by the Alabama and United States
Constitutions from taking such an intellectually dishonest approach to the fundamental rights of
the parties.
8
DOCUMENT 96
ownership on the Pierce Matthews Deed. He was not alive in 2001, when
the Clerk’s Deed was created. Then-Circuit Clerk Billy Harbin made a
fundamental error when he relied on Pierce Matthews’ Deed to create the
Clerk’s Deed. Everyone in this case knows that because of the
correspondence of Debra Kizer, the current Circuit Clerk. Ex. 1.
5. The Pierce Matthews Deed is not an option available to the
Petitioners. The Petitioners have no basis to establish title. The
management at Stewart Title has made clear that they will not provide
any support to such a claim. Ex. 3. The Estates of Pierce and Carrie
Matthews have their own title policy commitment. Ex. “4”. The rulings
of Circuit Judge Pride Tompkins, and the Supreme Court and Court of
Civil Appeals made over 20 years ago in this same action do not offer any
support for their claim of title. Ex. “5”. Those rulings counsel just the
opposite – concluding no subject matter jurisdiction existed for the
Private Sale. Those decisions were not reversed by Judge Day or the
Supreme Court. Again, there is no basis for the Petitioners’ claims of
title.
6. Thus far in this case, the Petitioner have claimed that they
have “property rights” (Motion, p. 3); that their title has been “upheld”
(Motion, p. 2.) and that the May 20 Order is one of the bases of their
claims for sanctions. The truth is they have not proven to this Court
that they have any interest in the property, this Court has not “upheld”
any such interest, and the May 20 Order was created through purely ex
parte means and is void ab initio and the Court cannot transfer them to
this case to give them legal effect. Crawford v. Crawford (Ex parte
Crawford), 221 So. 3d 1110, 1116 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016); Davis v. Davis,
9
DOCUMENT 96
183 So. 3d 976, 979 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015); Ex parte Ala. Med. Cannabis
Comm'n, No. CL-2024-0532, at *12 (Ala. Civ. App. Sep. 13, 2024); In the
Emmet, 293 Ala. 143, 145 n.1 (Ala. 1974); Neal v. Neal, 856 So. 2d 766,
781–82 (Ala.2002); Person v. Person, 236 So. 3d 90, 100 (Ala. Civ. App.
2017).
7. The ONLY basis of title available to the Petitioners is through
the deed of Pierce Matthews, who died years before the transactions
relied upon by the Petitioners. Since dead men cannot pass title, the
Petitioners have no claim of ownership and no reason to be before this
Court seeking sanctions. Veitch v. Woodward Iron Co., 200 Ala. 358, 361
(Ala. 1917). Until the Petitioners answer this fundamental question,
there is no basis upon which to go further.
This Court, according to the Petitioners, cannot
re-examine the merits.
8. According to their own position taken already in this Court,

this Court is not entitled to return to the merits of the case. See
McCarron v. McCarron 171 So. 3d 22, 27 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015). The
present motion is an invitation to do just that. The Petitioners previously
asked Judge Day for similar relief. Now, by their own admission, they
ask for additional relief. According to their own teaching, they are not
entitled to return to the merits.
There is no emergency
9. The “emergency” motion is not accompanied by an application
for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction or any other
type of emergent relief. The “emergency” is as contrived as the
10
DOCUMENT 96
Petitioner’s claims of title. In their Supplement, the Petitioners argue

that the Matthews and their counsel’s
“misconduct merits the Court’s IMMEDIATE
granting of the relief requested by Defendants-
Petitioners in their Emergency Motion . . . .”
(emphasis in original.)
(Supplement p. 1.)
10. Even the Petitioners do not truly believe they are entitled to
“IMMEDIATE” relief. They have not filed an application for a
Temporary Restraining Order. Nor a Petition for a Preliminary
Injunction. They have not posted a bond. They have failed to even move
for an expedited hearing as to their Emergency. The Petitioners’ actions
and their words are diametrically opposed. The Petitioners are not acting
as if there is a threat of any imminent harm. Their actions betray their
understanding of the truth – they have no interest the property, and have
no right to be before this Court seeking sanctions given that lack of
interest.
The Motions are based on false premises.
11. The Petitioners begin setting forth false premises in the first
paragraph of their Motion. They write:
[I]n light of further conduct by Plaintiffs-
Respondents Kevin Matthews et al., as well as
their attorneys, in flagrant disregard of, and
interference with, this Court’s Final Judgment
dismissing Plaintiffs-Respondents’ complaint and
upholding Defendants-Petitioners’ titles (Docs.
280 & 320 in CV-2022-901126.00), as affirmed by
the Supreme Court of Alabama on June 14, 2024,
11
DOCUMENT 96
to forthwith supplement its Order of May 14, 2024.

...
(Motion, p. 1.)
12. The actions of Kevin Matthews and his counsel are taken as
part of their responsibilities with regard to the management of the Estate
of Pierce Matthews, including the requirements of the Probate Court –
such as marshaling the assets of the Estate. As much as the Petitioners
dislike the fact that the Estate has been re-opened because it was not
properly administered by Mr. Martinson, they have no right to ask THIS
COURT to interfere in the Probate Court action. . Albright v. Creel, 236
Ala. 286, 289 (Ala. 1938); Davis v. Davis, 183 So. 3d 976, 980 (Ala. Civ.
App. 2015); Franks v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 679 So. 2d 214, 217 (Ala.
1996); Ex parte Ala. Med. Cannabis Comm'n, No. CL-2024-0532, at *12
(Ala. Civ. App. Sep. 13, 2024). “It is the general rule that a judgment or
decree of a probate court cannot be collaterally attacked or impeached
unless plainly void or made without jurisdiction.” Black v. Seals, 474 So.
2d 696 (Ala.1985) See also Franks v. Norfolk Southern Ry Co., 679 So. 2d
212 (Ala. 1996).
13. The Petitioners then write that this Court’s final judgment on
August 31, 2024, dismissed the Plaintiffs’ complaint and upheld
“Defendants-Petitioners’ titles.” Judge Day’s ruling did no such thing.
He dismissed the Quiet Title as he was asked by the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants to do. He could not have compared the titles and “upheld”
the Defendant’s titles because the title of the Matthews was never put
before the Court. The Matthews title was not litigated in the Quiet Title
action – it has never been adjudicated. As explained in the Response, the
12
DOCUMENT 96
Respondents do not possess title in their individual capacity as it remains

with the two Estates. Coastal States Life Insurance v. Gass, 278 Ala. 656,
659 (Ala. 1965); Layton v. Hamilton, 214 Ala. 329, 330, 107 So. 830, 830-
31 (1926); Smelser v. Trent, 698 So. 2d 1094, 1096 (Ala. 1997); Trotter v.
Brown, 232 Ala. 147, 150 (Ala. 1936).
14. The Petitioners’ suggestion that it was litigated is a
misrepresentation. They never filed a counterclaim challenging the
Matthews’ title. That the Matthews had good title was presumed. Judge
Day never impaired the Matthews title because he never had the
Matthews title before him to make such a decision. This is a false
premise leading to a false conclusion.
15. The Petitioners then write:
This is a contempt proceeding initiated by
Defendants-Petitioners against Plaintiffs-
Respondents and their attorneys for disobedience
to and interference with the Court’s Final
Judgment of August 31, 2023, as well as the
Court’s subsequent Order of May 14, 2024,
enforcing the Final Judgment.
(Motion, pp. 1-2.)
16. Curious then, that the Petitioners have yet to identify any
portion of the August 31, 2023, Order which has been violated by the
correspondence undertaken in the Pierce Matthews Estate case. Just
because the Petitioners do not like the nature of the letters or the content
of them, does not mean they run afoul of the August 31 Order. The
Petitioners must point out the language of the order that has been
violated. They consistently refuse to do so.
13
DOCUMENT 96
17. Of course, the Petitioners’ argument presumes the viability of

the August 31, 2023, Order. That presumption is far from certain. All of
the Orders of Judge Day are suspect because, like this Court, he lacked
subject matter jurisdiction based on the prior rulings in the case as
evidenced by the determinations of Circuit Clerk Kizer and the Tax
Assessor. This is the rare case in which the lack of subject matter
jurisdiction is supported by specific evidence.
18. In truth, the Petitioners “emergency motion” is nothing more
than an attempt to silence the Personal Representative of the Estate of
Pierce Matthews and the Personal Representative of the Estate of Carrie
Matthews. The Petitioners want to keep Kevin Matthews and Robert
Matthews from doing their job – finding the assets of his father’s Estate
and mother’s Estate. As such, this motion is worse than a collateral
attack on Judge Barger’s rulings and jurisdiction, it is a direct attack on
the work of the Probate Court. Albright v. Creel, 236 Ala. 286, 289 (Ala.
1938); Davis v. Davis, 183 So. 3d 976, 980 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015); Franks
v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 679 So. 2d 214, 217 (Ala. 1996); Wilson v.
Wilson, 53 Ala. App. 201, 206 (Ala. Civ. App. 1974). It is grotesquely
improper and illegal. See Franks and Black, supra.
19. Similarly, the May 14, 2024, Order only exists because the
Petitioners and their Counsel manufactured by ex parte means every
version of the May 20, 2024, Order of the Probate Court. Counsel for the
Matthews immediately filed a Motion for Clarification relating to the
May 14, 2024, Order seeking the advice of Judge Day as to how counsel
could ethically comply with such a diatribe. The Court, expressly relying
14
DOCUMENT 96
upon the May 20 Order,10 declared moot the Motion for Clarification and
refused to provide answers to any of the several questions propounded to
it.
20. Now, the Petitioners seek to impose sanctions on the
Matthews for not complying with the May 14 Order that the Matthews
legitimately challenged but those challenges were dismissed because of
the same counsels’ ex parte actions in securing the void May 20, Order.
Regardless of the actions of the parties, the May 14 Order is void for the
same reasons made here: the Order violated the constitutional rights of
the Matthews.
21. A judgment is void if the court rendering it lacked jurisdiction
of the subject matter or of the parties, or if it acted in a manner
inconsistent with the constitutional rights of the parties. Therefore, the
May 14 Order is subject to attack at any time, in any court. Volcano
Enters., Inc. v. Rush, 155 So. 3d 213 (Ala. 2014); See also Satterfield v.
Winston Industries, Inc., 553 So.2d 61 (Ala.1989).’”). See also,
Montgomery v. Montgomery (Ex parte Montgomery) 97 So. 3d 148 (Ala.
2012). See also, Dusenberry v. Dusenberry, 625 N.E.2d 458 (Ind. App. 1st
Dist. 1993) (void judgment is one rendered by court which lacked
personal or subject matter jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent
with due process); Matter of Marriage of Welliver, 869 P. 2d 653 (Kan.
10
Judge Day had before him the May 22, 2024, version accepted by Ms. Hughes for recording
at 2024 Miscellaneous Book Page 1866, which to this day has not been recorded. It has only the
Cashier’s Stamp on it. Nevertheless, Mr. Herfurth represented to Judge Day that Judge Barger
had “entered” the Order on May 20, 2024. None of which is true.
15
DOCUMENT 96
1994) (same). "Whether a judgment is void is a question of law." Ex parte

Citizens Bank, 879 So.2d 535, 538 (Ala. 2003).
22. Because Judge Day’s May 14, 2024, Order is void, this Court
cannot consider the Martinson Defendants motions to protect the order for
contempt or sanctions purposes. Ex parte Ala. Med. Cannabis Comm'n, No.
CL-2024-0532, at *12 (Ala. Civ. App. Sep. 13, 2024). Because that order
is void, this court cannot consider it.” Petrey v. Petrey, 989 So. 2d 1128, 1133
(Ala. Civ. App. 2008). Further, because all of the Orders of Judge Day lack
jurisdiction, this Court cannot be moved to protect the integrity of and
command obedience to a void order. “However, because that order was void,
this court cannot consider it.” Petrey v. Petrey, 989 So. 2d 1128, 1133 (Ala. Civ.
App. 2008) “"A person cannot be held in contempt for failure to do something
the court has not ordered."” Williams v. Williams, 323 So. 3d 675, 680 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2020).11
23. "Though a void order may be disregarded and challenged in a
collateral proceeding — as for punishment or for the collection of penalties
imposed by statute for disobedience — because of the heavy penalties
imposed for a disregard or failure to obey a valid order and the ruinous
results which may follow, it is held necessary that a method be provided by
law to test the validity of such order. In this way only unseemly conflicts of
11
Rule 70A, Ala. R. Civ. P., governs the disposition of contempt proceedings in civil actions.
Rule 70A(a)(2)(D) defines "civil contempt" as the "willful, continuing failure or refusal of any
person to comply with a court's lawful writ, subpoena, process, order, rule, or command that by
its nature is still capable of being complied with." "`Civil contempt seeks to compel or coerce
compliance with orders of the court. . . . The sanction for civil contempt continues indefinitely
until the contemnor performs as ordered.’" Petrey v. Petrey, 989 So. 2d 1128, 1133 (Ala. Civ.
App. 2008).
16
DOCUMENT 96
jurisdictions and ruinous consequences of a bona fide attempt to test such

order may be avoided." Alabama Public Service Commission v. Mobile Gas
Co., 213 Ala. 50, 54 (Ala. 1925).
24. The Petitioners then suggest that the April 25, Order was
surreptitiously created by the Matthews:
Plaintiffs-Respondents and their attorneys sought
and obtained an order from the Probate Court of
Madison County, dated April 25, 2024 (the
“Probate Order”), in a separate proceeding as to
which Defendants-Petitioners were not parties.
(Motion, p. 2.)
25. The Petitioners do not tell this Court that they were fully
aware of the existence of the Carrie Hayden Matthews Estate action. In
fact, they attempted to use the existence of that action to cast the
Matthews in a bad light before Judge Day. Moreover, the Matthews
published notice, all that is required, of the hearings leading to the April
25, 2024, Order. The Petitioners were not parties because they CHOSE
not to be. The Petitioners are not entitled to be parties because they are
neither a creditor or other interested party. Their attitude completely
changed when Judge Barger wrote the April 25, 2024, Order that they
didn’t like. The Petitioners waited, anticipating that Judge Barger would
not rule for the Matthews. When the Probate Court did so rule, the
Petitioners claimed surprise and that they were not parties. The feigned
surprise, and failure to seek timely intervention, provides no basis to seek
sanctions here.
17
DOCUMENT 96
26. This Court should note that the Petitioners did not and could
not allege the Matthews undertook ex parte communications with the
Probate Court.12
27. The Petitioners then list a number of letters issued by Mr.
Kevin Matthews and his counsel required of them in the management of
the Estate of Pierce Matthews and the Estate of Carrie Hayden Matthews,
alleging that all of the correspondence runs afoul of the August 31, 2023,
and the May 14, 2024, Orders. They ask this Court:
to protect the integrity of its Final Judgment, as
well as the property rights of Petitioners, from this
lawless conduct by supplementing its May 14,
2024 Order to expand the scope of enjoined
conduct by Plaintiffs/Respondents and their
attorneys, . . . .
(Motion, p. 3.)
28. The integrity of this Court’s final order is in no way
challenged by the April 25, 2024, ruling of the Probate Court. Moreover,
the Petitioners have absolutely no property rights in the Matthews
property. That was established by the letters of Circuit Clerk Kizer on
September 20, 2023, and October 25, 2023, the March 6, 2023, email of
Ms. Casey Williams from the Tax Assessor’s office, and the April 25,
2024, Order of Judge Barger. All questions are further removed by the
Stewart Title sworn response to the Matthews subpoena – the title
12
The May 20 Order was created with ex parte submissions of pleadings, ex parte hearings, and
an ex parte order that has yet to be served on the Matthews in that action. It is certainly true that
the Petitioners’ counsel have demonstrated that they know how to create an ex parte order with
the Probate Court. Judge Barger admitted to the ex parte nature of the Order in his November
19, 2024, email. As such, the May 20 Order, in all of its versions, is void.
18
DOCUMENT 96
company relied upon by Martinson, the downstream purchasers and even

the County says it has no documents to support any such claim. The
Petitioners have no support for any claim of property rights. Period. End
of discussion.13
The Motion seeks a prior restraint without any
constitutional justification.
29. Most importantly, the relief requested by the Petitioners

creates an unjustified prior restraint which this Court cannot
constitutionally issue. Worse yet, the Petitioners do not bother to
acknowledge the existence of this Constitutional issue and certainly do
not offer the Court assistance in terms of trying to justify it..
30. That the motion asks for a prior restraint cannot be seriously
questioned. The Petitioners seek an Order from this Court, in their
words:
(1) prohibiting Plaintiffs-Respondents and their
attorneys, whether directly or indirectly, from
entering onto the Petitioners’ properties located on
or along Winchester Road, in Madison County,
Alabama;

attorneys, whether directly or indirectly, from
having communications with any mortgage lender
or title insurer of any Defendant-Petitioner, and
with any officer or employee of the Madison
County Tax Assessor’s office, the Madison County
Tax Collector’s office , the Madison County
13
Judge Pride Tompkins, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals and the Supreme Court agreed in
each of their independent decisions that no subject matter jurisdiction existed to hear the Private
Sale which the Petitioners rely upon as creating their title through the Clerk’s Deed issued in that
Sale.
19
DOCUMENT 96
Probate Court’s office, and with any officer or

employee of any other department or agency of the
State of Alabama, relating in any way to the
ownership of or title to the properties of
Petitioners located on or along Winchester Road,
in Madison County, Alabama, or asserting that
Defendants-Petitioners lack title to their
respective properties, unless request be first made
to the Court, by the e-filing of such request along
with an attached copy of the proposed
communication, and unless the Court, after review
and/or hearing, expressly approves same; and,

attorneys from filing any action, proceeding, claim
or pleading against any Defendant-Petitioner
herein, or any attorney for any Defendant-
Petitioner, in any court relating to title or
ownership of the subject real property, or to any
efforts by Defendants-Petitioners, or their
attorneys, to seek compliance with the final
judgment of the Court in CV-2022-901126.00,
unless request be first made to the Court by the e-
filing of such request along with an attached coy of
the proposed action, proceeding, claim or pleading,
and unless the Court, after review and/or hearing,
expressly approves same.
31. In their Supplement, the Petitioners attempt to trample the

First Amendment rights of the Matthews, their counsel and 1819
News.com. Then, they admit that they are trying to squelch the
Matthews’ right to avail themselves of the Courts of the State of Alabama
– they are trying to deny the Matthews their right to a trial to before
their peers in an action against Madison County. Finally, they allege
that the claims of “ex parte” communications between them and Judge
20
DOCUMENT 96
Barger are merely “conspiracy theories.” (Supplemental Submission p.

3.)
32. The Petitioners’ claim of “conspiracy theory” does not pass
the red face test since the Probate Judge has admitted conduct placing
him squarely in violation of Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Conduct.
The Petitioners must be at the point that they will attempt any argument
to quiet the Matthews, to avoid the nightmare awaiting them when the
press fully reports their conduct, and to return to the days when they
could muzzle Kevin Matthews, as they did for 20 years.
33. Kevin Matthews will not be muzzled. He was caused to be
arrested by Doug Martinson twenty years ago. Martinson is again using
the same tactics claiming that Kevin Matthews was practicing law to
have him criminally charged and arrested using the identity of another
Madison County citizen without his authorization. All of which has been
demonstrated to be manufactured tales. Kevin Matthews’ determination
to have his family land restored is more focused now than before. This is
most particularly true because he has been wronged for over two dozen
years.
34. The Petitioners’ attempted muzzle is an unconstitutional
prior restraint. It is illegal. The question is not a close one. And, most
tellingly, the Petitioners do not bother to address this issue in TWO
SEPARATE filings on the topic before this Court. Their silence is strong
proof as to the size of the error they seek to draw this Court into.
a. The Petitioners’ requests are the posterchildren for
invalid prior restraint orders. The Petitioners actually
want this Court to stop the Matthews’ participation in
21
DOCUMENT 96
their work in the Probate Court. This Court has no such

authority, and trying to obtain the same result through
an Order of prior restraint is error of the highest caliber
and would be summarily reversed by the Alabama
Supreme Court by return email. This Court is too
sophisticated to be led into such an error by the
Petitioners.
b. The Petitioners ask this Court to enjoin the Mathews
from:
i. entering onto their property;
ii. communicating with their local County
infrastructure as to that property, specifically
naming the Tax Assessor, the Tax Collector, the
Probate Court before whom they must appear, and
any “officer or employee of any other department
or agency of the State of Alabama;
iii. communicating with any mortgage lender or title
insurer; and
iv. filing any action against the Petitioners or their
counsel.
c. Regardless of the number of times the Petitioners claim
to own the property, they cannot prove any ownership
from any source. The Madison County Circuit Court,
Court of Civil Appeals, and Supreme Court voided the
ruling in the Private Sale more than 20 years ago. No
22
DOCUMENT 96
title for the Petitioners exists there.14 The Circuit Clerk,

the Tax Assessor’s Office and the Probate Court on April
25, 2024, in its last valid order, agree with the Courts.
d. Nevertheless, the Petitioners aim to end the Matthews’
free speech rights to communicate with those persons
with whom they must speak to properly protect the
Estates of Pierce and Carrie Matthews. If there was any
question that the Petitioners want to end the Probate
cases, that question is answered in their request that
this Court prohibit the Matthews from speaking with
that Court. This Court is well aware that it has no such
power.
e. The Matthews have secured title insurance on their
property– the injunction sought by the Petitioners
would stop the Matthews from talking to their OWN
title insurer. Moreover, it is very likely that the
Petitioners could not obtain such insurance given
Stewart Title’s repudiation of their claims.
f. Not only do the Petitioners seek to end the Matthews’
participation in the Probate cases, they are asking this
Court to block the Matthews from pursuing any claims
14
The Supreme Court returned the case to the Probate Court of Madison County by writ of
mandamus. The Court felt so strongly that the Circuit Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction,
that it chose to make very clear who had jurisdiction – only the Probate Court. It took twenty
years, but the Matthews finally were before the Probate Court and secured a ruling on April 25,
2024, based squarely on the law and the facts. The ex parte reversal of that order secured by the
Non-parties’ counsel on May 20, 2024, creates no impediment to the April 25, Order. The May
20 Order is void as it never involved the Matthews and thereby denied them all process due.
23
DOCUMENT 96
against them or their counsel for any reason. Such a

request violates both the Alabama and federal
Constitutions right to jury trial, the procedural due
process rights of the Matthews, their Free Speech rights
and others. Yet, there is no acknowledgement these
concerns exist in the Petitioners’ Motions.
g. Famed First Amendment scholar Alexander Bickel once
explained the danger to free speech that prior restraint
presents: “A criminal statute chills; prior restraint
freezes.” In other words, if the possibility of punishment
might discourage someone from expressing themselves,
a prior restraint prevents that expression from
occurring at all.
h. A prior restraint on speech occurs when the government
“forbid[s] certain communications” before they occur or
requires a private person to obtain the government’s
permission before speaking. Alexander v. United States,
509 U.S. 544, 550 (1993) (quoting Melville B. Nimmer,
Nimmer On Freedom of Speech: A Treatise on The
Theory of The First Amendment § 4.03, at 4–14 (1984)).
That is exactly the paradigm followed by the Petitioners
– they want this Court to regulate what the Matthews
can say. The United States Constitution finds such an
Order reprehensible.
i. In a system of prior restraints, the government might
review the intended message for compliance with
24
DOCUMENT 96
government-imposed standards and decide whether to

allow publication of the speech like that requested here.
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 503 (1952).
j. The First Amendment limits both “previous restraint”
and “subsequent punishment” of speech, Thornhill v.
Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 101–02 (1940). Prior restraints
are an “especially condemned” form of speech
infringement because they closely resemble the “official
censorship” that the Framers of the Bill of Rights sought
to prevent. Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 734–35
(2000). Joseph Burstyn, 343 U.S. at 503.
k. Prior restraints can take the form of a court order, such
as an injunction restricting the publication of specific
information or prohibiting private parties from
engaging in speech on a particular topic in the future.
See Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753,
764 n.2 (1994) (explaining that prior restraints “often
take the form of injunctions”).
l. As Justice Black stated in Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S.
501 (1946):
As we have stated before, the right to exercise the
liberties safeguarded by the First Amendment
"lies at the foundation of free government by free
men," and we must in all cases "weigh the
circumstances and . . . appraise the . . . reasons . .
. in support of the regulation . . . of the
rights." Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 308 U. S.
161. In our view, the circumstance that the
25
DOCUMENT 96
property rights to the premises where the

deprivation of liberty, here involved, took place
were held by others than the public is not
sufficient to justify the State's permitting a
corporation to govern a community of citizens so as
to restrict their fundamental liberties and the
enforcement of such restraint by the application of
a state statute. Insofar as the State has attempted
to impose criminal punishment on appellant for
undertaking to distribute religious literature in a
company town, its action cannot stand. The case is
reversed.
326 U.S. 510.

m. The Petitioners are well aware of the dictates of the
First Amendment set forth above. They know this Court
is, too. Yet they offer no analysis as to how the prior
restraint they seek to impose might satisfy First
Amendment concerns. None. Perhaps, they thought the
Matthews would not think about the First Amendment.
Perhaps, the Petitioners expect this Court to look the
other way. Perhaps, there is a lack of intellectual
candor. Mostly likely, however, they offer no analysis
because they have none that can justify the limitations
on Free Speech that they cavalierly ask this Court to
impose.
Conclusion
The Petitioners make no effort to justify, under the Constitution,
the prior restraint of the Matthews’ Free Speech and therefore First
Amendment rights. The failure to offer any constitutional analysis is
26
DOCUMENT 96
even more pointed given that the Petitioners can prove literally no
ownership interest in the property. Absent any attempt at constitutional
justification, the “emergency” Motion becomes merely another symbol of
the Petitioners’ desperation and desire for the Court to fall prey to the
reality of their Twilight Zone. The Motion, indeed the entire action,
should be rejected without more and dismissed with prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Rick Kornis
Rick Kornis (KOR004)
Attorney for Heir Plaintiffs
4776 Mainstreet, Ste. L202
Orange Beach, Al. 3656
[email protected]
(251) 213-9040
/s/ Franklin H. Eaton, Jr.

Franklin H. Eaton, Jr. (EAT009)
The Eaton Law Firm, LLC
3145 Gulf Shores Pkwy
Gulf Shores, AL 36542
(251) 317-1630
[email protected]
27
DOCUMENT 96
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on this the 20th day of December, 2024, I have caused
to be served a copy of the foregoing on the Petitioners’ attorneys using
the electronic filing system authorized by the Alabama Judicial System,
AlaFile.
James A. Bradford
Connor Herfurth
Balch & Bingham LLP
1901 Sixth Avenue North
Suite 1500
Birmingham, AL 35203
Tel: (205) 251-8100
Email: [email protected]
Dustin D. Key
Harrison & Gammons, P.C.
2430 L&N Drive
Huntsville, AL 35801
(256) 533-7711
[email protected]
Allan D. Jones
Carr and Allison
100 Vestavia Parkway
Telephone: (205) 822-2006
Facsimile: (205) 822-2057
/s/ Rick Kornis
28
DOCUMENT 97
12/20/2024 7:11 PM
47-CV-2022-901126.01
CIRCUIT COURT OF
DEBRA KIZER, CLERK
Exhibit 1
DOCUMENT 97
STATEoFAI utFAMA
TWENI JUDICIAL CIFICUIT
"-THIRD
MADrsoN CorJMrY CouF.rHol]gF'
1 0O NoR-rni Sror Sounas
HUMTSVII.LE. AI,ABAMA 3580 I
DEBRA KIZER r r.Prroi.r (2561 -532-3390
CItIcUlrCr-EPK rl,t (2561 ,32-176t
oEEAA.XrzErio.,|-A(:r)rrlll -@V
October e5, 2OZ3
Rick (ornis
forni! & Asroclates PC
4000 Eagle Point Corp Drive
R6: Matihews cas€s - 47-Cv-1999-2288 and 47-CV-2022-901126
Oear Mr. Kornls;
I am sorry, but as th€ saying goes, the Courfs record 'speaks for ltself,' and I can only certify
what i$ contained tn thc court's rccord. Therefore, ifl response toyour Octob€r 2X, ?0?3 email reguest I
$ate 6s follsws:
l. There is norloint tltle between Marzie Patton and Carie Matthews,. contalned in the record for
Medison CouIrty Case No. CV-1999-2288.
2. There is no "Appraisal Report that containr ths abrementioned ioint de€d,, mntained in the
record for Madison Cpunty Case o. CV-1999-22S8.
1. There is no "Clerk's Deed that the clrcuit Court Clerk {Bi}ly Harbin} exec$ted in this matter
{whereby he used the deceased's.}anuary 2t 1948 joint d8ed as itt sourc€ of tltfe)" contained in
th€ record for Madison County Case No. Cv-1999-2288.
"ffnx)ra,
Circuit Clerk, Madison Coumy
cc: Ail parties to 47"CV-202?.HI1126 (via emeill

DOCUMENT 98
12/20/2024 7:11 PM
47-CV-2022-901126.01
CIRCUIT COURT OF
DEBRA KIZER, CLERK
Exhibit 2
DOCUMENT 98
Bou( ?ltE;
rsB6 r.s26 raxtlt.i#$Tffs
II'\'
$TATEOFAI.ABAMA
Itl/tlMf Ar,AltAM^ar
corrNryorulDlsow ,
,}
tt
II
^^, ta t\$ I
0t J[tt I t 3.-;_
nra4Ift,Rrer/Fdfin r.H"romrtr
5q0rri[r!j:ff$*^$\"
xNow AIr MtN'By rsBst, pREstrvrg n'", ro.
rum of Teu and oo/roo ($ro.oo) Dollarr rnd o(her gnod ""at*'.fii1*&ii,;"*h"
and vdtltt!ts tgDtifu?itioD
oaid to tho uadcrsiroed M.rdG Matthcwr Pettonr i rult"lcd tvdhtih' Gnntor, by
fuarre Uantrarc- Panon ard Bobby Prtton' hurbend rnd rvlft (sogt) g.ioint
ErrntS wltlr r{ht of rurvlvotrhlp, attd Mat'ttnron & Baron,, P.G, tn
elaDrrne Profedonal cot?omtbn Gor), Gru&cs' tlr ruc.i$ of whldr L ho&y
rchovdeit*ld. ttc uadcxdgni' Onsto: [*
trb ds, brrliirrtd md rold, auG tU tbsse
prmntr do berrby errnt, bergstn, cdl md onvry unto lhe Gmntoc+ re rtrted ebon'
ho follovdu deeaiEGd aact br persl o{ It!4 L}ruE rd bdlr8 tn MrdIloD Courv,
Ahbame, ani morc prnierlrrly deaeibed as foltow+ uwitl
Ser Erhibit'A' attachtd.

Ho prt of the ebovs desrlbed nd propcrty sDrtihlu a pert of the
homcrtrad of the Gmltor, nor hcr tpotge.
TO HAVE AllD TC, HOIJ en utrdtuidcd fifty {Sort) p€rcd lotr.csl ln t86 tact or
garcol of land unto thc saH Graleq Mar{ason & Saason, P.C, tu agltgm rttd flftoesru.
fi) HAVE AND TO HOLD an undh{&d ffty GoS) pcrccnt l cret ln thc eald
tird o. parlef of knd unto tlc eaid Gmnteee, Marde Matticw Patton aad Eo@
Patton, hushand ard wifq togedlet x,l$ all rnd rhgular 0$ tfthb, trtiemeirtr
lrcrditaments, epDunenarce! and imp,rovuncnts tlpeunto bclottdttt. or ir rnywbo *l.o o
appertalnlng, unto'tc saitl Grautecs, ai joint EtrlE, wllh rlght of 8trrvtwrshlB ttfil hGiB 'lo, o o
cird .$iglls forrl !.1 it beiru tb. idftotm of the panb to dtis om8rnncc, 0!rt (unl€6s ihc
joht bnanry hcE€by crrertod ls gEtcred s Emlnitcd dudry dlsioitrt ltvEt of the Grarb.s
trcrcin), in tho cwat ooe Grantce he'dn srvhc thr ottur, iic cnEle htcrxt Is fte gimple l. .o
&ell ps o thc orvirAlg Omlte, rd Eoor Gr8nt€G dG td f,rs,{ve dro6rr,0rcn t N
hdr3 ud arst*nr of the Gfinteer hatis Crdl tE&E r, ts rnts ln omrmoa
tffiffr,S.Fffi.- I hrw hcrcunto !€t ey hcEd rad c.rl oa tDc ?o.ot

__.A,S
&oa
STA]IEOFAIABAMA
?4.a<
)
C1oUNTYOFMADI$ON
I, the underslgnd r Notary Public, ln rnd for sld Stuc at Large, hrr$y
cerdfy that Msrzle Potrsir, vrhe nnme rs dgned to tho iorrgoing
tnstninsnt and who lr krowD to m& aclaorrledged. More
me, aclnswlsdgcd day tlut,
bdore me ou thlr dsy tei
thrh beint
informsd of tht oontens of raid iosirrreiot, rhc erccrned the samc ftecly and lolunurlly
rb&o&ydptalutbcartdatc.
. Gtvcn unitermyhaldandrmant rot * U,uEiqyof
MyConnixdm
THTS INSTRUMEITT PRSPAASD Bk
Douglar C. lr{artiruoa Eaq"
ldanlnron & Beasoq P.C"
uS North Slde Squ.rr
P, O, lox t9o48
Huntrvlllc, Alaboor 358o+9o{8
(eE6) ggs.t66?
Flhlb.i eo8g6oz
DOCUMENT 98
&.0r' gAotl
{'98I o5? 7
EMIfjA
lllrlrt parr or parccl d lelt(t l!'irlg eild bchg tn ore +oqtlwcll gllslet
{5W l/{) dSocie 33, Tlrznhlp 8. Aliqo I Eeil o(!}l. bcrir Morldra ol
ElllirstDe, trhDarr€i ttrolc l,Ertculsrly daacrib€d ar begimhg rl. rtona
tr th. ccnGt of th. t{orth bourdary of rho &uthrct Ouanc 6llf f/a) cf
lrid gccdon t6i tlterc. dus trrt rlq€ lhs Quertrr r*{on lift
8,?0
chrh. b r str,hq ttl3d6a SotO lA d.Er.. Wert tt.C8.$rifir brFoi8th
rt* ctr$rE st YfMri, sr Iiffidi gtenoa OonC Otr ccrtir ol lema rt
lollorr: South 59 ds$ees W63t 0.00 cluirs to r pohq $sno. gourh 8g
degreer Wea 3.82 chEi$ to . pobB trlrEo Llvelg tEad Norri l/l
dogrr. Eid &rE ttc QuErt* Qurlt€r cec{oa lllc iE.Zo chrlnr lo tL
bqhnirE .rd cmtrhhg ?8.00 ul.r raor e toll, |sd b!&E pdr oC t
rrtlr. proPortz doarrarbd io Ed lld.sl, llr,. .ed ldr wib, t{om lldd. tst
d.cC .Liid h. lE &y ot MrtEh 18t1. rnC r.e{.d [rlool d Diada
tHl,Prge(}.
lourc6 olllttc: D|€{t too& 183, P8g€ 336.
It[8dbor Ccunty Plobarc Courr Ce.a #{19] 46.
Mldircn Cou$ty Ctrg'|dl Oolrtl CllG t gv80.rg88
ReftGnccd: Da.d SooI 350, Po{B I .
cEo#8-IE 38.00 {8
S.bjo.* ro a rtglrt of.wey ,cr I Fuufc lcad sn thc South gld,g rf &.
lbu'l ootc8t,3a propnrry t6r Wl&ctlsst r nosl d66dad to tha EtaL of AL.blmr !,
Si$Lo&fty Dsad tor Arblb RoeC roodrd No,cmbq e8. 1064. ud roco,xfrd h
D.a.l loat @, P!9. I l d.rci'ur€d .r ,oUor't?
Itrd .r .lrown on t&c rtglt ol way m.p ot Psoj.ci Nq. &a08(g) .nd rr
rocrdrd ln the oficr ot t&c lud$, ol Pr,obrb of l,t dtroe Cou$I.
legitllringr lt 8t {o e8?+Sl trfioro &o c.:rter thc ol PrcJed e.e36(A)
&rlcr8ecrs lo nd bonnday Ine of the lE t/{ o, tla 8[f 1/{ d Sccrba
3E ?osnsnip a SGuth, RrtrgE I Elri, the w€rr ptop6rr, line (!.id po{rtt
rllo boi,ng ia csrter o{ srl dst trg County ioao and fln th€nea I{ 0p
ll' E rlong $id !,es!t bouldrry tins e dirte$6e or 86.U0 lc€t to a poht
rh.r b 60 leer nodhr.rrerly 6t lrt4 8t rlglt ulglc. lo tha caltGs lira ol
,dd ptojecl; th6(rc6 ia 6 no haes6rly dir€cffdr rlong a cruru u uir
dg,lt (6oav.r lo,fihaattarly) htvlrry I rrdlur of 87?0.84 bat I ([salrc.
o{ C?2 .? iast, norc o: LEr, to a point th4t la C0 ii.t nort&rmat.rly ol ll|d
nr a!0ll ao &. c.ster line of *a,id projed .| Sration 9?3+3t.66: .
8gc g)' E prrdlcl to thc eefier liag of sald Fojrcr I dtgrucr
rh.ice $'ttglo3
of 02€* ic.t to r poirt orr ths 6ast F!€pBr? lina tlat ir S0 leoi
northwestarly of and Ef rtght uglc! to ttr c€{*or linG od aitd proi.ct rt
SttuoE ,r.[+A?.8i rhesc€ I f 08' E do8g $td ..rt p8oD€fiy lhs a
dirtsr€ ot 6t,S2 fo;i, rtor. or tctr, to a pohr la ttir jrnrir of rrr
edd$g OarfiI nard &rl ir 2 fret noflhwarterllr of rrrd 8t right atgL.
to th. cahllr lbr of tqid Forcct at 8rauo,n al4+08.r+ uan/ce h r
.ou-tt rr{Edt d!]sc{oa dOBg tll. co8er ol rtH eorully Rord r
dilrnce ol 612 lcot, rn ?. Gc !..r, to (h. pol8t ol bagrlr&E, Ur€ !1 tha
8E I /r[ ol the 8$l l,/al ot S€€{sr gtr Tow ltlp I Eaufr" nangc I Esrr rlld
contrlDtng 0.?t ..!er, notr cr hra
ffi
*,1C
+ei
u-4.
xer
'qia
DOCUMENT 98
BOOR iE
IAOE' li
I
?n
,rgEE 0520
.-v
\q11 i
I:
lr
l
Cissuir Ooll't h Cilil Aslion otrrbcr CI&8a€0EDP, rnll tsGd lt notld

.bde, raaderrd otr the lSth d.y ol No"!Etb!s,4000, t ld td! hrvilE blaB
rnrda Draf,r.nt to tLi erfu. b.itrE o lui.Itd by r ooun otda!d aDFriu.
r,ndMlrle lilrltfe'rr kifc. ((krIrt .) brhg the hlghort .trd M btdda
b( !..h ti.t .t bgcrr!. lha pur!fur.! ol r[. uuditidrd ottc-hr[ (f/3)
inl+Ittt ln reid :rrl pop*ty r,'t|.d bt Curte II. Metl n hltrlridc
d+!cib.d ,or th. rlni cd6ct nry r}o4rrnd lnd no/100 Ot0,0(x1.00) Doltqr,
&d
wHEfiEtrs, on rhc trldry d .

drcr8i ot trid
Iarlusr, Eool,
Coqn ?! rl de rnd .tri6r6d h tdd thr
Civil Aqtim td{yitrg .r!d coqfrluag
,rlc of the urdtvidd o$-h.!t O/4 lflhE ri ol Crrrto tl, Mrflh.flq ln tha rorl
art ts ho[inn{ dr|clbad to tIE .rid (k rrt.r br $. au6 oi S.flaltl
tttourud .!d soltoc (l?O,O(xrfll) Doll{r lltd d&.ctirit the CfGd. of rh.
Co$tl to rculr urd deltuGr to tho rdd &!l!t a, r d!6d colrryirB dl of iht
nS& 6U. .!d lmut.t of Cf,if,E I. lllft,i ir .ttd to th. Lrldt
hdlinrn dercib.d rnd dcrqibcd in 6c 6rder hfiairibrls! tBattofi€d.
'l
NOW, IIIE8EFOiE itr conridintion of thc pr.tni.a .rd o(,1* t/'o O

full piym.ftt to m. ct the piEllEce mqrcy, r! IBgdrcd, of g€yE$ty nloulalrd Y.FO
rItd no/100 (t?0,(m.00) Do[.rr, th. r.colpt f,hs.ot i! i!.a!y
rch{rLdg.d. !, Btr, D. Ilrbln, Clqt ol l.id Cou,l h trtA Couttt .trd St !c
l'o"
e€
E ot rh. a$arity h n6 vErtaC l? thr dC D.qae c, tlc Call:l m.do
"irt[ r)0,oo
rnO enterea or tha:lfaay otJam&r. !001, ht". aoLf r!,rl ce(IruyGl rtd b,
ther. D!.r.$. ao t-r.by trqtt, lr.rC.la ..[, ir.turor rDC ccnE, tlrlt9 tha 3 to-
tald Otar 6e, &rrdr Mrtthrrr Ertol rtl dght, ti{. .td hrrsr.r C g5.nt ---'A--
GIIIE E, !ll!!fEwt, rtlo ir . tr.st, te lH, Cdl r.dotr .rd ombg .s
uldidd.d, csr. hl& tl/t, &t E .r t! r.i.l ttif olttl., br .nrl b th. ,!llcri!{
d.r€i!.dr..t drtr, jruri.d h&r Oc,untf dU.dir6a Bt t otlr.fcnll' b,
DOCUMENT 98
. o.*-..*...,.,* .*.- .., -(L *-*.*'"_.q**_r*_
e00x, P.toti
ir988 052,
JE@EE@tt I lnrcnEl
Scuror olllth: D6od Eool183, Prg.89B;
D.rd BooL 310, l.g. ti
U.dlon Counit P!ob{r. cor8! C..G No. tgl{6i ud
U.dbBl Oorloty Ctrdl Coutl GlIo&aaBEP.
fO HAVE AIID TO BOID tra .bofl dG..ribtrl lot 6 grEc.L ot

lurd, togllh.l rvirh dl utd tin{Dh tho ridl r. tsnoltonb. hErdit .n.dr,
.pFnlanrrpsr ad tEiFqlrrcitr Ura<.rntp b.lcargi.E, c ln llrritc
l,Fedrltllsg, urto !h. dd Otrsln UIIIIE UlffErl Dtlltotl, bc
hrtrr" EasEtd Lt rosIllritvB, .rac.rdr &d adgttt loElrEi acaEtt rl
trlgrttn l.rar ror ill. cgrd F!r,
IN IE8IMONIa WHEREOP, I Xelrt h.rEu$o let ny hsrd rnd

6ad rny t .l of .rid Clrrutt Cousr o, l,tadilon Cot[ll.r. lhb.nr d rw oEo
ia Hqntt t[., filb*rr on U,i. Or flILy ocJqs.'r. aOOf .
n ]
Alqb.rlr.
ttllloFtl48l}l^ r
@UNTTOF MIDtsON )
l. fia la|deder.4 r Uot t, hrbli., ln l,d k trld Shr. d f.tgr.,

hcrly c.fiff thrt BiUy !, tlubh, iltma mr[ i. riln d to th. bt goilg
hrEuBurt l, Clsk ol tha Citc{t Corltt .f Mrdlon Ccrltrtt ard rho L t1brrn
to !na, aol6olrladFd bclcr rnr {r thi. d.y ttur, bdrt hfurn a ot th. .
d!.nrr o, !h. ..id inaEurr€dr he, h n&h c.prlttI, lsaolrad llrt !rs!c taaly
sdrolu{rrify 060l. drrtt r.l . bqrt dd..
urd., my h.nd llld Efirid t€d oD ttlo ,rk:!4, C

,rtttrry,lml-
My Conurnrdoa
NUS EISTflI'MEM PNEPTiED BY:
.Dgugll! C, M.rturor, Erl.
IIIftTBIEON & BE[8O{. F.C. ,
llbom.yt rt Lw
116 odtSd€ I'qurra
P,O. lor 180{A
Hlttrtr.lue, tt$.ttll olgo}goaa
fi08) tc+t6dr
FiIt l[o. 8060808
doug@mblntrr,cl
DOCUMENT 98
ET|I:[!
.Itl tut Fdt s parc.l oa led lting .rd h.1it tr rha Eourinlll rlEang
(,S! lfll ols.ctio! 85, T!'m!t p 4,irl9" I Eld drh,bai! t{![idIt d
flu8&v10., fi!.b.ln.i tlrdt P.rdcdltr, d.E{bGd !, D€gltlnltlg .i . i@!
in th! c.!E ol0ro Nodr b rday.dtlc Soslhse{ 0n iLr 6\f Va)d
rdd Ecclim 35i ttr.,ncg du! Eut dolg $r O!.dts rctio! In! &rg
cl|rirr io r (.Ii.i thotrc. 5ou{! l/{ dag$r 19.d 18.88 cluitu lo t point in
U. c.de! a( Windt.au n{d; !t@ .long rha c6ti.t d ..lB a
toU.iflaj 6oqlh 6a dqr€.a 9Y.n 6.00 cltairt lg a PodI; dEle 86 h 06
dagr*r W.rr c}.iia to. poht ih o l..rtte rs.d llotlb L/a
3,02
dagl* E d d.!tg dt. Ou.lLr Otllrt! ..ctD! lir. lC.I! 6.irr ts 6.
bsntlllitlg rnd conlrid&l 28.00 ..Br rBor. or h.., .trd b.rirtE parl ot {t
.{no |xoleny EoTtrFC !o Ed lLd6, &., .!d il. tli. NdlBd6, b,
dced drtcd &s at dry ot li.rclt 184I, qt ttoErtd b. Eoolr dD!.d,
t8O, Prg! aO.
Eo!{cloaTirfe: DaldEoo! lE, PiE.39t

}!.di1o8 Cctrlty Flobda Coort C.r€ *301 {8.
M.di&n Co$nt, girqdl Court Cur to{r8*Aet8
Rera.icrdi D..d, Book 380. PeF L
c,Eo *t:E*5.00- -r8
$:Djeq ro Light-oGrit lor . Frl}Uc ,e.C on lhr Sor1l! Adc q, tlr

.Dorr dEdb.4 |,roD.rly lor Wiftir.rr n ad daad€d io t[. *.re <rd lLb.nl. !
Xlgtt of-W., Dr.d e! hblic no.d t..crdC Nolruib.t lS, lona, .r|d r.ord.d ir
prad Eool lto, Ptge l, d.rstb.d.a ro[olvr
.Ind r! lhglru on d€ rrgt[ dwEy tnlt al hored I{o, $a3€(Z) .trC.s

rsscdld htls o ce d&sFdge olkobqlll of ldldit.n Cout,
Begi,ltllng fi striidr ,dl+Sl qteto tlr (*nt!(Iine of horact +236(g,
i[r.!r.ctr wtri bo$Ild.ry litto d ule EE l/+ ql the 5n, ln d lectiolr
rlte
38lbwlEf,ip I6o.i}, R.rEc I Ern, $. rrln ploFatty lire (tatd ltqirtl
d.o baiDt i! canie! of rn .:irtu{ Counr, Ro[di a.!d lulr il€ncA N 0.
I l' E .loig i.id f,srt borln{rly ttrc a di't&Ea ol 86.10 !..t ra . po|nl
lhai ir gO feet no llwe.tarlt ca and a! rigbr ltlgl.r tc th6 carn€r li'tlc ot
rald Fgirdi th€lEe is . trorta$tsrlt dinctioE .torg r currr to lia
!ig!u (convEr tlodlG.ftrr) hrrilg a rrdiq .t g?20.68 [..t r diC.,o
oIE?7,? fagt, aroEr or toapoi $At i! 50 !..1Eorthi|ait€rly o!rrd
ls!!.
d dghl .lgtet ic rhs q!!E lhe a{ isid gt€lod rr &.don frij+0t66;
thaD.c tl 6t' 50' E p.srusl to 0l. cslt€t linq d.dd projeal i dlrt!|rca
of 03.9+ Ieq io ! poi o! rh. cl.t FoP.rty E; thrt B SO leet
lrgt}E9rtgrly o( ald ar rilh r'lgbr to th6 c6f.r tn d aal{t ptoract at
6!.rior 3 +?7.8i thettlr S U Oa. E .tory Eit arrt !roDe;t,'i!,r I
rtirt.nE 8l3l ,..t. ntDrr or 16rl. to i ?d!lt tr rfr 6a*& cl rn
dlIiry Colrlv
-ot Bo.a ti.t i. e i.t !.atht'.Airv sf tiut .l tg rsd.t
io lte cent.! llr. cl dC Frojrsr rt dtrib! ff++Ot.rfl tinc.| r
T'llllrtFc.lE]I lil.. rcrl .lcri r} ..tE d,.ld Coufff fo.d a
di.t .Dc.-d 8?A bd, rl.E 6 Laa, t6 Ota go&tt 6i badrlnlg, VirE t! Ut
EE va d 0E l./{ <d E.cdor ui To(rlrNp r gq!\ arnii i eirr
drblra OrO-u. -sw E r.qE ""a
-12 ae
EIHS= il?
qi-.1i"B
a
DOCUMENT 98
I
I
t'-
I
tg86 n523
\\10
EI tEd Crf,EUrr COUX,T OrMr.D0rOI{ Couttrtr tltrtrtltrl
tr{ig nfiurfEnoFll{E ESTAIE OP t
i E6rc. M.nL$rr. D.r..red 0 (xv!lrt!onN,o.:
I X.dirctl CoEty hob.t Ccilrr Crs{I[o.: 3OU8 ! CV0e-TSSSDDF
GENERIIrw'xkllrrrDEED
I' PEntOlTrI, REPI EEENIIIIVE
;
KNOW AI,L MEN By T!{ESE DiESEM!,, fhrl, h oolnpurtEo *itL
th! |!rEl. lnd lrrovirionr o, tha !.rt Witt rnd T.rt.[r.!rt ot plu!. M3ttttelm,
Drce ricd rnd pu!!u$rt to a! Or{cr ot 6a Cuault C<run of Madlra CouJ-
Llr,tl., ggl0.zzl8f,Df, drreA the lgdey ct trnrrry, 200t, Mf,rZff
MIffETrlt P.ETrON, P€rlald lopareuartvc k Urr-irtdr'ot pirrsc
lEanharer, D.Esrr..t, MEdllotr Csu[.? Esobit CoEn Cat. No, g {8
(C!rntor), hot.by give!, flrlnE, bargain!, E lls Erd conrry. rI of th. dtrr. riue
Tul intcs vstGd irr Pierc€ Matth€,m, DeceEed lDeoirdott) A thc-time cl
:d..1\ .n9 dro aI o, rh. rght, titlc utd irue:st Orll grld Ertrtc Ud/gE th.
tccd.ilt he! :r lay.$d rcd ot irh, by oponton of hw, or ottrcgwi;c;mt
hre€ rcquir.d, oth.! Ol.& or jr rCCition b Ol.t of thc Dqcrdr $ rh. th. &
&rrh tliro M!RttE LIlrtEE$[s ?lr.lotf (cn u.c), .n iniilid.d o;h.[
!y0 h lhr b[qring derqib€.t !.rl Grtd., t,a,.da h Mdilqr Oo,tlrr,
ILbJtlltc,witl
l5ELaolDnermrcrml
Sqnoe oftt0t: Dcedlook lg3, prgeg0lli
Dcld tool g5D, Frg. t ;
M.dilor Couty plobato Col[t Clr. No. ggl{g; md
Ir{.diroft Coqty Ctrg1dt Coufi CafgnA!8EDF.
. IO IIAVE .f,llD I1f, HOLD, rhc .bcrr dcrdrlbed tot o[ DEE I ot

!lnq, r)geul3l dl rnd singular itc dqltr. tencnunr. rr.r.air"-i.+.
lppultendrot! '{llh
aad imForsmGni! tlureurrio belonging, ;
llpqEhirg, uato tho laid Grentec, he: heirr
in ;i;;
ltld .rriglr roE vgr.
_-.-^_glT:.L d9e!. in- he! cep..ity .r rcrdrrt 8.F!..r(rriv. ot..,idl

Err.rc,
"--._ oorr.lr$t tiitt
p.!tqr.r R.Fersnr.6v€,dllrh6tail o!B[t.r, hs helll anrt rrdEnr rt,at
is hwfuly ;E d i" il. dmr;#;"i;.-d;"...ra
8*tli: * , "r-*bra,,.rq
eiorDr a-cnr ra nionn ..rrt;; ,l.ro
- Gra{oG .tro cseBtrDrr firq h [a( crpdt,
I taid paEloarl ?, <o
iep...,tn hr. .nd prrnraal . n *"rt ia-, d," t.r-. g.iiightl-;iffi
6t'ry lh. r.nc u !&Err.td; rhd rtr lral In fl.D c.D.dt d&';;;;
irr. r.m. te llr..id cram. her 1,.&i .td
.!ngt-dioc: ;]tr;ffi
C.in o, ![ plstonr, .!6Dt ra iindiErld r!o!. e{
so
*
"..* Toom'mff?a:#u1ffi rrisps..rnri'v.
2'"
flw-gd**2,rA-- t G,L{
Mssi. I{rttlEtrr P.tictl. ir pitr6rEl
"rr;i:,t#A RsFa$.[tatte. C tlr. Btala o! plaro.
MrflIrert, D.ca.aad. lHtdjro[ Countr'
PrebrtE Coutl C.r No. g {a
'-#"
Z{"Y"{
, -?-p- -o a'
Y""-
DOCUMENT 98
sosll f't0El
ITATE OP IITBT A
{r3E6 05?4
COUIUYOP MTDISON
l, ill' und.tliEred, r Ndry hlllE, ln rtrd 16r rdd AtrL rt LEga,

hodeby c6rlily thrt ltudr Mrtilrcrll, P3(on wi6B rfiall, rr Flrrrqrd
Beprar€t$atlya o{ th€ Elfrt ot PitrcG M.ttilsrr Dac€l'!d. M.dloB Co'I! y
Pro!.t. Colr't Care !Io.: g8l{oi lr rlgn.d io lh. to6GgDdiE in truInrlrtr .rid
wto b h6.n lc mr, rdlrrowtrdgrd b{!on n. otr thb day thaf, bsfurg
hft,rErd of lha csrtanb of th" rrid frlEqlncr*, rh., lcdng h ruch crprqitf.
..Bd Eith ftfl {.rth$ity, .r.€ul.d lht ..tir t dy atrd yolnntrd}t qtr 1116 d.!l
tha rrrr6 blua di!a- ':
cv.tr urr.r rrt Iiud arxl o6si.! rcil on ttrr €9U., orl.r*O,
?ool.
THts INSIT,UMENT PNEPARED EY:

Douglar C. M.riin6oq Eqq,
f,rlrtitlson & Searon, P.C.
115 North Side Squ.ro
P, g,lor 190{8 rir''.'i.'f' ..., -'
Hu E1iU6, Alrbunr 3S80eB0{8 ' 'r_ _i .,- ...1 .
(456) 633-t88?
Pnq Wq.; a089802 I
I
DOCUMENT 98
9O0r ?r€t
986 0525
EXXlliIT !.!J'
fll thd Frn or parcal o( lr^d iying and behg in tha Souulwltl qutl€!
(8\i9 l/ai ol Sc3dcn !8, to,enEril, a, arrEt ! E tl od lbc b..b MsrldJl,l ol
Hunt iuh. .tr,|abrEl.i tiDir p.dic{tllty dc.dh.d lr bagdrstjrt .ri r ttoE
h frr c.nr.r od lh. Ncrtb bo]rldEy od lh. SoI]|h'"!.| Qu.tid GW l/{) oa
r.la Sodio|r 3it tbdrE dro Ern ddlg tho Qtstat tc€lotl litn aJg
dr.ltlt !o . rLb; thoic6 Souh l/t dclre wlrl33.68 dtr|
to . Poi in
tllc oart6 ol WltralE c nff& tDlrEe .!org Era ctil.t C a{t!c ll
6uowr; 6or{h BE dEgEo.. W€rl 9,00 Crahr ro s FiDl; otanc| Soulh ig
dqgEes. Wcsr E,!8 d.br lo a poinq ftE$Es lcarint I!.C Nclr! l/{
dogria larl UorE rl!. QEsn6 Qulllir aaation lln 86.?0 dralia b tha
beldrr{t|g uldco rlrrhg e2-60 s(f,rr nolt or !iit, .Ilal ba(ng prn oflh.
.r,trr pttp.tt, c!6v.yod lo td H.dr+, s,, $td Ur Btb, Nst. thdqn by
d!.C drt.d tlll 2E day ot MirEh l9{?, .Jld tco.sdad h lo€,L dDr.dr
l80,l.g. {0.
go!!c6 olTigli Deld Dcoh 163, P.9.396.
lr{rdtpn Ccuity hobrl! Couir C8t. #301{4.
Msd|on ColErtI Oirsutt Court CrEa #C1rtg.iigE
icfttric€d; D.rd Dook 360, Page l.
GEOtrz.lE.g8.oo. -48
strDi€A lo r right olr,rry lor r plblrc .oad o{r the losth slda ol rhc
.,bolc rf..c.lb.d prop.rty t6 wl!.tr.X€ Rord &.a!rC ro lie Stat ot Allbjrt bt
f,tgh.of.Wrf D..d lor lublc aD..l rocordsal Novembrr 16, lBel, ltid rrrord.d ln
Dlad troo!350, Pag€ l, dsastbed er lollo*rr
Lrlrt ll rholl}r o!! lle tigtu ot wry r!|f ol ltojocl Ne, El36(a) &d lr
raeo8dad ltt lha Ofic€ ol rh! Irdg! oI Probrti o{ M.dipn CouDl,.
Eagiru{ry rl Slrdon 287+37 wb.tE lhe c€a er lirr. ol Ptoi€cl &2!6(2)
hte4ocir th6 wgit bolltdaty liltq ol th6 SE U{ ot th. 8!8 I/4 ol t ctiDn
AO tewnrhlp 2 iouth, R.,ltr I E fi, th. ryelt plop€ltt Ih€ (!arC pqhl
&o beirg h c.ntot Ol atl r:drlh$ CO,Jr$y RosCt .ttd rui th![aa !10.
I I' I .]ong t.id i.rl bot&d,..t} tin! . dhtrrlcr ol 16.20 Ld tc . ,oht
$1ll b 50 frrt r€dtfaatclly ot .rd .r right .rEl€a to tha ci:ltar lill6 o(
reld Frojaati thalrae !t r nontoE l.rty allrccddl along a cura to ltro
riqil (coivar no h6ed€rly) haviDq r r.diur or Sl?9.01 ,oar r did.ne
ol $l?.7 leel. nroao or le.r. ro ! poir that i. 50 tGct of l,|d
!9lthrEtrdly
3i righl iDgla! lo &e celrt4r lir. oI.r.!d 9rolca .l Sl.Uon e?S+3{.661
.ehrlr ulc
D.rciI6I lo lhc .ent.r
&BncG N 6to 30' E F.rciI6I ttn ol .atd bbl.d I. dlot
reld plor.cr di.r.tE
rE
r pol
BZ.ga !..1 ro r pol oIl ths
el B,Z.ga rhs lin. thlt b 60 lc.t
pnrFelty UnL
nontwrrtorl, ol and ar dght.ngl,ss"rnro Ut c.nrat lllla of a.td prol.d rr
6r. on 274+2r.8r th.nc. S Op 06, E .tong r.id olrt propc?ry riE r
dirrErce oI El.tZ fecr, rnor€ d Ls, lo r poirt h lh! aanta, oI .ri
c:ladry Oo{ruy R4tA rhar i! Z GEr ttoIlhrraal;ru ot and at rthr $lgL.
.'
ro rh. c.!lli! lnlt dt riid proj..r !t Strtlon ,Ta+Ot.r{i 0;&. in r I
routh*-torly dlGction dong tir6 crlltet ot ttld Coualy Eo.d r tl
dlrl.IE a! 8?a LGt, mo!. o! L.., ro Lh. Dold ot ,r.gtrtr!h{, }yi!c in th€ I
SE l/l th. EW l/{ olS.crion SS.
ot ?o i
uhtp Sou0t. frnlc eerr r"a i
cotltrittrt 0.?3 a6a., tEorc ot L$. --!) ,I
.aZ W, l
I
lt:e"B? ie I
I
it',q\ 1 EF-
?!WZ
F -ir
T-
DOCUMENT 99
12/20/2024 7:11 PM
47-CV-2022-901126.01
CIRCUIT COURT OF
DEBRA KIZER, CLERK
Exhibit 3
DOCUMENT 99
,9xh,bi{
Docuslsn Envelope lO S4EE0Ac0"S575-4AD4.A528-?A1 FFF0368AD
#stewart 'IlltI
laron Miles
Counsel -
Direct operations
Stewart Title Company
VIA EMAIL & FACSIMIIE:
November 14, 2024
Rick Kornis
4775 Mainstreet, Suite 1202
Orange Beach, AL 36551
Re: ln the matter of the Estate of Pierce Matthews, Deceased
Dear Mr. Kornis:
As €ounselfor Stewart Title Company, the above-referenced subpoena was forwarded to me

for response.
Pleas€ be advised that we received the subpoena and after researching our records thoroughly,
no responsive documents were located.
sincerelv,
r
llJ-"
F.a'46
Jaron Miles
Enclosures
Stewart Tltlo Company

1360 Post Oak Blvd,, Ste., 100, MC#1{.1
Houston, Texas 77056
o (71r)625.8020 I F {713} 629-224E
.t,..
DOCUMENT 99
Oocusign Envelopo lD: A6E2Fi2A.A5 !84720-831 7,M95D10C2C29
CERTIFICATE
I. Jaron Miies hcrcby certity that I am thc lcgal Custodian oi Records fol Sreu,an
Titlc, and aft$ thorough rcview ofthc rccords that Stcwnrr Titlc, r'naintains iu irs ordinary course of irusincss, that
I ean find n-o records including Title. 'Iitle Searches, Tirle Conrmiflnenrs, or Title policies issued on the follorvirrg
lantl property purccls located in Madison County. Alabama issued by Douglas Mlrtinson, Marlilson & Bcason
P.C, Law Firn. aud/of any agqncy thcrcoi rclatcd to;
Propcrly L Parccl No. 08-0?,3 5-0-001-076,000, also known as 0 Winchcster Road, Huntsvillc. AL
35801
Propeny 2. Parccl No. 08"07-35-0.001-0?6.0()5. olso klloun ns ll43 l\,leridial} Slrcd Nonh,
Iluntsvillc. Al- 15801
Pmpcny 3. Pnrcel No. 03-07-3 5 -0-001-076.001. olso known as 0 Winchesrcr Road, llunrsvillc, Al.
I5801
Propcny 4. Parcel No. 0L-07.35-0-00 !-076.004, also koolvfl us 0 Wiochestcr Road. H[ntsvillc. Al-
15801
Property 5. Parcel No. 0lt-07-35-0-001-0?6.003, also known as o Winchcster Road, Huntsvillc, AL
3 5E0l
Property 6. Parcel No. 08-(17.15-0-00 l-07(r.(X)9, also linowrr !s 2145 !Vinlhestcl Road. Hunrsvillc.
AL 3-5E01
Ptoperty 7. Parcel No. 0 R-07-35-0-001-076.0011, also known s 2125 Winchester Rold. Huutsville.
AL 35t{01
Propc.ly ll. Parccl No. 0ti-0?-35-0-00 | -076.006. fllso known as 0 Wi[chcstcr Road, Hrmtsville. AL
1580r
Propcrty9. Itarccl No. 08-07.35-0-001-076.00?. also known us {) Winchcsrer Road. Hunrsvillc, AL
l5n0t
Propedy 10. Parccl No, 0li-07-3 5-0-001-076.00I, also known fl$ {} Winchcstcr Ro0d, lluntsvillc" Al.
35E01
As Custtxlian of Recotds tbr Stewurt'I'itlc, I would have access and rvould bo uble to locrte any uffieial
rccords rclatcd to the abol'e idcntified Prpp{rtics, ifslch existcd in ourrceords. lt is thc rtgular coursu of business
ol Stewart Title to rnaintain acuurate itrd cornpl€re recods wllich arc rcquired by the laws ofthe Sutc ol'Alabaru
to be kept-
I firrtlcr ccrtity that Stow[rt maintuirls lll olncifll rccords oi Stcwarr Tit]c. arc kcpt al 1160 Post Oak
tslvd., Suite I U)- Houston, TX. 7705(r, and rhat it *as in thc rcgulrr cou6e of said business lbr such rccords to be
madc at thu tilrrc ol the evct]ts, tmnsi]!(lolls, or occurrcnccr Lo whigh thcy tctcl, or wr$in a rcasouablc ltme
thereatier,
Signcd dris Sgqday ofNoveruhcr, 20:4.
CUS'I'ODt,{N OF RECORDS
sworD to and s[bscr16c6 69L.. rrc o,l fii5 25th day oi- November .2j24.
b*t**0'*t
IL.*,jinlrraIqa6.At
My Commission Lxoirc" T-31-2025
Fler3e return tol
I-aw OfiLe ofKorrtis & Associates. P.C'
Pnul"Ri!'k" Kornis
4??(' Maiusrrcc!. Suite L2{)2
Orangr; Bcach. AI. 36561
DOCUMENT 100
12/20/2024 7:11 PM
47-CV-2022-901126.01
American Land Title Association Commitment for Title Insurance
CIRCUIT COURT OF
2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
DEBRA KIZER, CLERK
ALTA COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
issued by
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
NOTICE
IMPORTANT – READ CAREFULLY: THIS COMMITMENT IS AN OFFER TO ISSUE ONE OR MORE TITLE INSURANCE
POLICIES. ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES SOUGHT AGAINST THE COMPANY INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS
COMMITMENT OR THE POLICY MUST BE BASED SOLELY IN CONTRACT.
THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE, LEGAL OPINION,
OPINION OF TITLE, OR OTHER REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF TITLE. THE PROCEDURES USED BY THE
COMPANY TO DETERMINE INSURABILITY OF THE TITLE, INCLUDING ANY SEARCH AND EXAMINATION, ARE
PROPRIETARY TO THE COMPANY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY, AND
CREATE NO EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING A PROPOSED INSURED.
THE COMPANY’S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS COMMITMENT IS TO ISSUE A POLICY TO A PROPOSED INSURED
IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS COMMITMENT. THE
COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT TO ANY OTHER
PERSON.
COMMITMENT TO ISSUE POLICY
Subject to the Notice; Schedule B, Part I – Requirements; Schedule B, Part II – Exceptions; and the Commitment Conditions,
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, a(n) Florida corporation (the “Company”), commits to issue the Policy
according to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. This Commitment is effective as of the Commitment Date shown
in Schedule A for each Policy described in Schedule A, only when the Company has entered in Schedule A both the
specified dollar amount as the Proposed Amount of Insurance and the name of the Proposed Insured.
If all of the Schedule B, Part I – Requirements have not been met within 180 days after the Commitment Date, this
Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end.
COMMITMENT CONDITIONS
1. DEFINITIONS
a. “Discriminatory Covenant”: Any covenant, condition, restriction, or limitation that is unenforceable under
applicable law because it illegally discriminates against a class of individuals based on personal characteristics
such as race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, familial status, disability, national origin,
or other legally protected class.
b. “Knowledge” or “Known”: Actual knowledge or actual notice, but not constructive notice imparted by the Public
Records.
c. “Land”: The land described in Item 5 of Schedule A and improvements located on that land that by State law
constitute real property. The term “Land” does not include any property beyond that described in Schedule A,
nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in any abutting street, road, avenue, alley, lane, right-of-way,
body of water, or waterway, but does not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land
is to be insured by the Policy.
d. “Mortgage”: A mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, security deed, or other real property security instrument,
including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law.
e. “Policy”: Each contract of title insurance, in a form adopted by the American Land Title Association, issued or
to be issued by the Company pursuant to this Commitment.
f. “Proposed Amount of Insurance”: Each dollar amount specified in Schedule A as the Proposed Amount of
Insurance of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment.
g. “Proposed Insured”: Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued
pursuant to this Commitment.
This page is only a part of a 2021 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is
not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I – Requirements; and Schedule
B, Part II – Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.

The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Page 1 of 14
DOCUMENT 100

2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
h. “Public Records”: The recording or filing system established under State statutes in effect at the Commitment
Date under which a document must be recorded or filed to impart constructive notice of matters relating to the
Title to a purchaser for value without Knowledge. The term “Public Records” does not include any other
recording or filing system, including any pertaining to environmental remediation or protection, planning,
permitting, zoning, licensing, building, health, public safety, or national security matters.
i. “State”: The state or commonwealth of the United States within whose exterior boundaries the Land is located.
The term “State” also includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, and Guam.
j. “Title”: The estate or interest in the Land identified in Item 3 of Schedule A.
2. If all of the Schedule B, Part I – Requirements have not been met within the time period specified in the Commitment
to Issue Policy, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end.
3. The Company’s liability and obligation is limited by and this Commitment is not valid without:
a. the Notice;
b. the Commitment to Issue Policy;
c. the Commitment Conditions;
d. Schedule A;
e. Schedule B, Part I – Requirements;
f. Schedule B, Part II – Exceptions; and
g. a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
4. COMPANY’S RIGHT TO AMEND
The Company may amend this Commitment at any time. If the Company amends this Commitment to add a defect,
lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter recorded in the Public Records prior to the Commitment Date, any
liability of the Company is limited by Commitment Condition 5. The Company is not liable for any other amendment
to this Commitment.
5. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY
a. The Company’s liability under Commitment Condition 4 is limited to the Proposed Insured’s actual expense
incurred in the interval between the Company’s delivery to the Proposed Insured of the Commitment and the
delivery of the amended Commitment, resulting from the Proposed Insured’s good faith reliance to:
i. comply with the Schedule B, Part I – Requirements;
ii. eliminate, with the Company’s written consent, any Schedule B, Part II – Exceptions; or
iii. acquire the Title or create the Mortgage covered by this Commitment.
b. The Company is not liable under Commitment Condition 5.a. if the Proposed Insured requested the amendment
or had Knowledge of the matter and did not notify the Company about it in writing.
c. The Company is only liable under Commitment Condition 4 if the Proposed Insured would not have incurred
the expense had the Commitment included the added matter when the Commitment was first delivered to the
Proposed Insured.
d. The Company’s liability does not exceed the lesser of the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in good
faith and described in Commitment Condition 5.a. or the Proposed Amount of Insurance.
e. The Company is not liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any.
f. The Company is not obligated to issue the Policy referred to in this Commitment unless all of the Schedule B,
Part I – Requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the Company.
g. The Company’s liability is further limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy to be issued to the Proposed
Insured.
6. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT; CHOICE OF LAW AND CHOICE OF
FORUM
a. Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may make a claim under this
Commitment.

Page 2 of 14
DOCUMENT 100

2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
b. Any claim must be based in contract under the State law of the State where the Land is located and is restricted
to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. Any litigation or other proceeding brought by the Proposed
Insured against the Company must be filed only in a State or federal court having jurisdiction.
c. This Commitment, as last revised, is the exclusive and entire agreement between the parties with respect to
the subject matter of this Commitment and supersedes all prior commitment negotiations, representations, and
proposals of any kind, whether written or oral, express or implied, relating to the subject matter of this
Commitment.
d. The deletion or modification of any Schedule B, Part II – Exception does not constitute an agreement or
obligation to provide coverage beyond the terms and provisions of this Commitment or the Policy.
e. Any amendment or endorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and authenticated by a person
authorized by the Company.
f. When the Policy is issued, all liability and obligation under this Commitment will end and the Company’s only
liability will be under the Policy.
7. IF THIS COMMITMENT IS ISSUED BY AN ISSUING AGENT
The issuing agent is the Company’s agent only for the limited purpose of issuing title insurance commitments and
policies. The issuing agent is not the Company’s agent for closing, settlement, escrow, or any other purpose.
8. PRO-FORMA POLICY
The Company may provide, at the request of a Proposed Insured, a pro-forma policy illustrating the coverage that the
Company may provide. A pro-forma policy neither reflects the status of Title at the time that the pro-forma policy is
delivered to a Proposed Insured, nor is it a commitment to insure.
9. CLAIMS PROCEDURES
This Commitment incorporates by reference all Conditions for making a claim in the Policy to be issued to the
Proposed Insured. Commitment Condition 9 does not modify the limitations of liability in Commitment Conditions 5
and 6.
10. CLASS ACTION
ALL CLAIMS AND DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS COMMITMENT, INCLUDING ANY
SERVICE OR OTHER MATTER IN CONNECTION WITH ISSUING THIS COMMITMENT, ANY BREACH OF A
COMMITMENT PROVISION, OR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THE
TRANSACTION GIVING RISE TO THIS COMMITMENT, MUST BE BROUGHT IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. NO
PARTY MAY SERVE AS PLAINTIFF, CLASS MEMBER, OR PARTICIPANT IN ANY CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE
PROCEEDING. ANY POLICY ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS COMMITMENT WILL CONTAIN A CLASS ACTION
CONDITION.
11. ARBITRATION
The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Proposed Amount of Insurance is $2,000,000
or less may be arbitrated at the election of either the Company or the Proposed Insured as the exclusive remedy of
the parties. A Proposed Insured may review a copy of the arbitration rules at http://www.alta.org/arbitration.

Page 3 of 14
DOCUMENT 100

2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE

COMPANY
1408 North Westshore Blvd, Suite 900, Tampa, FL
33607
By:
President
By:
Secretary

Page 4 of 14
DOCUMENT 100

2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
Transaction Identification Data, for which the Company assumes no liability as set forth in Commitment Condition
5.e.:
Issuing Agent: South Oak Title Commercial, LLC
Issuing Office: 1550 West 2nd Street, Suite 4A
Gulf Shores, AL 36542
Issuing Office’s ALTA® Registry ID:
Loan ID Number:
Commitment Number: QCOM-24-1007
Issuing Office File Number: QCOM-24-1007
Property Address: (Property 1) 0 Winchester Road, Huntsville, AL 35801; (Property 2) 1243 Meridian Street North,
Huntsville, AL 35801; (Property 3) 0 Winchester Road, Huntsville, AL 35801; (Property 4) 0 Winchester Road, Huntsville,
AL 35801; (Property 5) 0 Winchester Road, Huntsville, AL 35801; (Property 6) 2145 Winchester Road, Huntsville, AL 35801;
(Property 7) 2125 Winchester Road, Huntsville, AL 35801; (Property 8) 0 Winchester Road, Huntsville, AL 35801; (Property
9) 0 Winchester Road, Huntsville, AL 35801; and (Property 10) 0 Winchester Road, Huntsville, AL
Revision Number:
SCHEDULE A
1. Commitment Date: May 22, 2024 8:00 AM
2. Policy to be issued:
(a) 2021 ALTA Owner's Policy
Proposed Insured: TBD
Proposed Amount of Insurance: $250,000.00
The estate or interest to be insured: Property 1: fee simple
Property 2: fee simple
3. The estate or interest in the Land at the Commitment Date is:
4. The Title is, at the Commitment Date, vested in:
Property 1: Watson Company, L.L.C., an Alabama limited liability company by deed from Winchester Partners,
L.L.C., an Alabama limited liability company dated 07/15/2011 and recorded with Madison County Recording Office
on 07/25/2011 as Instrument #20110725000377400.
Property 2: AL Huntsville Winchester, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company by deed from Watson
Company, L.L.C., an Alabama limited liability company dated 10/09/2018 and recorded with Madison County
Recording Office on 11/13/2018 as Instrument #2018-00072330.

Page 5 of 14
DOCUMENT 100

2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
on 07/25/2011 as Instrument #201107250000377400.
Company, L.L.C., an Alabama limited liability company recorded with Madison County Recording Office on
11/13/2018 as Instrument #2018-00072330 in Book 10092018.
Company, L.L.C. and Alabama limited liability company dated 10/09/2018 and recorded with Madison County
Recording Office on 11/13/2018 as Instrument #2018-00072330.
Property 6: Scott Royal Smith, Trustee of the 2145 Winchester Road Trust by deed from Nhat Quang Nguyen dated
02/05/2021 and recorded with Madison County Recording Office on 02/17/2021 as Instrument #2021-00013438.
Property 7: Aldi Inc. (Alabama), an Alabama corporation by deed from AL Huntsville Winchester, LLC, a South
Carolina limited liability company dated 11/06/2018 and recorded with Madison County Recording Office on
11/13/2018 as Instrument #2018-00072335.
Property 8: Watson Company, LLC by deed from AL Huntsville Winchester, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability
company dated 10/09/2018 and recorded with Madison County Recording Office on 11/13/2018 as Instrument
#2018-00072330.
Property 9: 2139 Winchester LLC, an Alabama limited liability company by deed from AL Huntsville Winchester,
LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company dated 02/25/2021 and recorded with Madison County Recording
Office on 03/08/2021 as Instrument #2021-00018702.
on 07/25/2011 as Instrument #20110725000377400.
5. The land is described as follows:
The land is described as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
SOUTH OAK TITLE COMMERCIAL, LLC OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE
1550 West 2nd Street, Suite 4A, Gulf Shores, AL COMPANY
36542 1408 North Westshore Blvd, Suite 900, Tampa, FL
Telephone: (251) 581-9250 33607
Countersigned by:
By:
President
Melissa Kessler Smith, License #0656604

South Oak Title Commercial, LLC, License #010381
By:
Secretary

Page 6 of 14
DOCUMENT 100

2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
SCHEDULE B, PART I – Requirements
All of the following Requirements must be met:
1. Documents satisfactory to the Company that convey the Title or create the Mortgage to be insured, or both, must
be properly authorized, executed, delivered, and recorded in the Public Records.
Seller(s)–Execution, Delivery and Recordation of Fee Simple General Warranty Deed conveying the property
described herein, from the owner as shown herein to TBD, the borrower as shown herein.
Borrower(s)–Execution and Recordation of Mortgage from TBD, the borrower shown herein to TBD, the lender
shown herein, in the principal amount of $0.00 shown herein.
2. The Company requires a final non-appealable Order vesting title into the Estate of Carrie Hayden Matthews in
Probate Case No. 67999, Probate Court, Madison County, Alabama and a non-appealable final order in Case No.
CV-2022901126.00, Circuit Court for Madison County, Alabama. Upon review of the final orders, the Company
reserves the right to make additional requirements and/or exceptions.
3. The Company requires payment and satisfaction of that certain Future Advance Mortgage, Assignment of Rents
and Leases, and Security Agreement from AL Huntsville Winchester, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability
company, to BancorpSouth Bank in the amount of $3,545,566.00 dated December 15, 2020 and recorded on
December 21, 2020 in Instrument No. 2020-00102001 in the Probate Records of Madison County, Alabama.
4. The Company requires a release of the Assignment of Rents and Leases between AL Huntsville Winchester, LLC
and BancorpSouth Bank dated December 11, 2020 and recorded on December 21, 2020 in Instrument No. 2020-
00102002 in the Office of the Judge of Probate for Madison County, Alabama.
5. The Company requires a termination of the UCC Financing Statement from AL Huntsville Winchester, LLC as
Debtor and BancorpSouth Bank as secured party recorded on December 21, 2020 in Instrument No. 2020-
00102003 and amended in UCC Financing Statement Amendment, recorded on March 3, 2021 in Instrument No.
2021-00017379 in the Office of the Judge of Probate for Madison County, Alabama. in the Office of the Judge of
Probate for Madison County, Alabama.
6. The Company requires payment and satisfaction of that certain Future Advance Mortgage, Assignment of Rents
and Leases, and Security Agreement from AL Huntsville Winchester, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability
company, to Progress Bank in the amount of $4,601,756.00, dated November 6, 2018 and recorded on November
13, 2018 in Instrument No. 2018-00072332 in the Probate Records of Madison County, Alabama.
7. The Company requires a release of the Assignment of Rents and Leases from AL Huntsville Winchester, LLC to
Progress Bank, dated November 6, 2018 and recorded on November 13, 2018 in Instrument No. 2018-00072333
in the Office of the Judge of Probate for Madison County, Alabama.
8. The Company requires a release of the Assignment of Rents and Leases from AL Huntsville Winchester, LLC to
Progress Bank, dated November 12, 2020 and recorded on November 14, 2020 in Instrument No. 2020-00100013
9. The Company requires a termination of the UCC Financing Statement with AL Huntsville Winchester, LLC as
Debtor and Progress Bank as Secured Party, recorded on December 14, 2020 in Instrument No. 2020-00100014
10. The Company requires payment and satisfaction of that certain mortgage from Nhat Quang Nguyen to Alabama

Page 7 of 14
DOCUMENT 100

2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
Credit Union in the amount of $1,129,990.00, dated December 20, 2020 and recorded on January 6, 2021 in
Instrument No. 2021-00001548 in the Probate Records of Madison County, Alabama.
11. Release of the Collateral Assignment of Leases and Rents from Nhat Quang Nguyen to Alabama Credit Union,
dated December 20, 2020 and recorded on January 6, 2021 in Instrument No. 2021-00001549 in the Office of the
Judge of Probate for Madison County, Alabama.
12. The Company requires a termination of the UCC Financing Statement with Nhat Quang Nguyen as Debtor and
Alabama Credit Union as Secured Party, recorded on January 6, 2021 in Instrument No. 2021-00001550 in the
Office of the Judge of Probate for Madison County, Alabama.
13. Termination of the Memorandum of Lease between AL Huntsville Winchester, LLC as Lessor and Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc. as Tenant, dated December 22, 2020 and recorded on January 6, 2021 in Instrument No. 2021-
00001545; thereafter assigned to Nhat Quang Nguyen in Instrument No. 2021-00001547 in the Office of the Judge
of Probate for Madison County, Alabama.
14. The Company requires payment and satisfaction of that certain Mortgage from 2139 Winchester LLC, an Alabama
limited liability company to CenterState Bank, N.A. in the amount of $2,700,000.00 dated February 25, 2021 and
recorded on March 8, 2021 in Instrument No. 2021-00018703 in the Office of the Judge of Probate for Madison
County, Alabama.
15. The Company requires a release of the Assignment of Rents from 2139 Winchester LLC, an Alabama limited
liability company and CenterState Bank, N.A. dated February 25, 2021 and recorded on March 8, 2021 in
Instrument No. 2021-00018704 in the Office of the Judge of Probate for Madison County, Alabama.
16. With respect to Watson Company, L.L.C., the Company requires copies of the following:
a. Articles of Formation;
b. List of Current LLC members;
c. Operating Agreement (if any);
d. Certificate of Existence from the Alabama Secretary of State's Office; and
e. Certificate of Compliance from the Alabama Department of Revenue.
Upon review of same, the Company reserves the right to make additional requirements and/or exceptions.
17. With respect to AL Huntsville Winchester, LLC., the Company requires copies of the following:
d. Certificate of Existence from the South Carolina Secretary of State's Office; and
e. Certificate of Compliance from the South Carolina Department of Revenue.
18. With respect to Aldi Inc. (Alabama), the Company requires copies of the following:
a. Articles of Incorporation;
b. Corporate Resolution authorizing the sale of the property along with a Certificate of Incumbency;
19. With respect to 2139 Winchester LLC, the Company requires copies of the following:

Page 8 of 14
DOCUMENT 100

2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)

20. The Company requires for its review a copy of the 2145 Winchester Road Trust. Upon review of same, the
Company reserves the right to make additional requirements and/or exceptions.
21. The Company requires a letter from the City of Huntsville stating there are no outstanding assessments against
the property.
22. The Company requires a written statement from the Winchester Road Condominium Association, Inc., or its agent,
stating the amount of the unpaid common or maintenance charges against the Property, to the date of closing. At
that time, the Company may make additional requirements or exceptions. Such statement should include proof of
payment in full of all current and past assessments, if applicable. (All properties).
23. Taxes for 2023:

Property 1 - Parcel No. 08-07-35-0-001-076.000 - No taxes due for 2023.
Property 2 - Parcel No. 08-07-35-0-001-076.005 - were marked PAID on December 26, 2023 in the amount of
$20,588.04.
Property 3 - Parcel No. 08-07-35-0-001-076.002 - No taxes due for 2023.
$1,483.64.
$2,661.04.
Property 6- Parcel No. 08-07-35-0-001-076.009 - were marked PAID on December 5, 2023 in the amount of
$16,280.60.
$44,849.08.
Property 8- Parcel No. 08-07-35-0-001-076.006 - were marked PAID on December 26, 2023 in the amount of
$5,744.32.
$21,931.32.
$18,028.72

Page 9 of 14
DOCUMENT 100

2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
SCHEDULE B, PART II – Exceptions
Some historical land records contain Discriminatory Covenants that are illegal and unenforceable by law. This
Commitment and the Policy treat any Discriminatory Covenant in a document referenced in Schedule B as if each
Discriminatory Covenant is redacted, repudiated, removed, and not republished or recirculated. Only the remaining
provisions of the document will be excepted from coverage.
The Policy will not insure against loss or damage resulting from the terms and conditions of any lease or easement identified
in Schedule A, and will include the following Exceptions unless cleared to the satisfaction of the Company:
1. Any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter that appears for the first time in the Public Records
or is created, attaches, or is disclosed between the Commitment Date and the date on which all of the Schedule B,
Part I—Requirements are met.
2. Those taxes and special assessments, which become due and payable subsequent to Date of Policy.
3. Any prior reservation or conveyance, together with release of damages, of minerals of every kind and character,
including, but not limited to, oil, gas, sand and gravel in, on and under the Land.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not
shown by the Public Records.
5. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be
disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land.
6. Easements or other uses of subject property not visible from the surface, or easements or claims of easements,
not shown by the Public Records.
7. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the Public Records.
8. Amendment to Declaration of Condominium of Winchester Road Condominium as recorded in Instrument No.

2020-00058476 in the Office of the Judge of Probate for Madison County, Alabama.
9. Supplemental Agreement as recorded in Instrument No. 2021-00001551 in the Office of the Judge of Probate for
Madison County, Alabama.
10. Covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, easements, and liens for assessments set forth in the Declaration
of Condominium for Winchester Road Condominiums, and all exhibits thereto dated October 3, 2018, and
recorded November 9, 2018 in Instrument No. 2018-00071707; Amended in Instrument No. 2020-00058476;
Instrument No. 2018-00071706; and Second Amendment to Declaration of Condominium of Winchester Road
Condominium recorded in Deed Book 2022, Page 26764 in the Office of the Judge of Probate for Madison County,
Alabama.
11. All terms and provisions of the Certificate of Formation of the Winchester Road Condominium Association, Inc.,
dated October 6, 2018, and recorded on November 9, 2018 in Instrument No. 2018-00071706, in the records of
the Office of the Judge of Probate for Madison County, Alabama, and the By-Laws of the Winchester Road
Condominium Association, Inc., a copy of which being attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Condominium for
Winchester Road Condominium recorded as set out in Number 5 above.

Page 10 of 14
DOCUMENT 100

2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
12. All rights and limitations of condominium owners pursuant to the Alabama Uniform Condominium Act of 1991,
Sections 35-8A-101, et. seq., Code of Alabama (1975), as amended.
13. Restrictions contained in the Memorandum of Lease recorded in Instrument No. 2021-00001545 in the Office of
the Judge of Probate for Madison County, Alabama.
14. Terms and conditions of the Encroachment Agreement recorded in Instrument No. 2021-000042661 in the Office
of the Judge of Probate for Madison County, Alabama.
15. Right-of-way Deed to Madison County as recorded in Instrument No. 20150430000220600 in the Office of the
Judge of Probate for Madison County, Alabama.
16. Right-of-way Deed for Public Road granted to the State of Alabama as recorded in Volume 350, Page 1 in the
Office of the Judge of Probate for Madison County, Alabama.
17. Easements, restrictions, setback lines, and all other matters as shown on recorded plat of subdivision as recorded
in Instrument No. 2018-00071705 and Instrument No. 2018-00072331 in the Office of the Judge of Probate for
18. Annexation recorded in Instrument No. 20060703000437190 in the Office of the Judge of Probate for Madison
County, Alabama.
19. Encroachment Agreement between AL Huntsville Winchester, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company and
2145 Winchester Road Trust as recorded in Instrument No. 2021-00042661 in the Office of the Judge of Probate
for Madison County, Alabama.
20. Memorandum of Lease recorded in Book 2023, Page 41185 and amended in Book 2024, Page 2618 in the Office
of the Judge of Probate for Madison County, Alabama.
21. Declaration of Easements as recorded in Instrument No. 2018-00072331 in the Office of the Judge of Probate for
22. Hazardous Substances Certificate and Indemnity Agreement dated February 25, 2021 and recorded on March 8,
2021 in Instrument No. 2021-00018705 in the Office of the Judge of Probate for Madison County, Alabama.
23. Memorandum of Lease dated February 3, 2021 between AL Huntsville Winchester, LLC and Walgreen Co., an
Illinois corporation recorded on March 10, 2021 in Instrument No. 2021-00020102 in the Office of the Judge of
Probate for Madison County, Alabama.

Page 11 of 14
DOCUMENT 100

2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
EXHIBIT “A”
The Land referred to herein below is situated in the County of Madison, State of Alabama and is described as follows:
Property 1
Common Element Detention Area of Winchester Road Condominium, a Condominium established by the Declaration of
Condominium of the Winchester Road Condominium dated 3rd Day of October 2018, and recorded the 9th Day of
November 2018, an instrument No. 2018-00071707, and as amended by the Amendment to the Declaration of
Condominium of Winchester Road Condominium dated the 6th day of August 2020 and recorded on the 6th day of
August, 2020 in Instrument No. 2018-00058476, and as shown on the Winchester Road Condominium plat recorded in
Instrument No. 2018-00071705, respectively, in the records in the office of the Judge of Probate of Madison County,
Alabama.
Property 2
Unit 5-A of Winchester Road Condominium, a condominium established by the Declaration of Condominium of
Winchester Toad Condominium dated the 3rd day of October, 2018, and recorded on the 9th day of October, 2018 in
Instrument No. 2018-00071707, as amended by the Amendment to Declaration of Condominium of Winchester Road
Condominium dated the 6th day of August, 2020 and recorded the 6th day of August, 2020 in Instrument No. 2018-
00058476 and shown on the Winchester Road Condominium Plat Re-subdivision of Unit 5 in Instrument No. 2020-
00058475, all of the records in the Office of the Judge of Probate of Madison County, Alabama. TOGETHER WITH the
undivided interest in the common elements and facilities declared in said Declaration and the Amendment thereto to be an
appurtenance to said Condominium Unit.
Property 3
Common Element-Access Drive of Winchester Road Condominium, a Condominium established by the Declaration of
Condominium of the Winchester Road Condominium dated 3rd Day of October 2018, and recorded the 9th Day of
November 2018, an instrument No. 2018-00071707 and as amended by the Amendment to the Declaration of
Condominium of Winchester Road Condominium dated the 6th day of August 2020 and recorded on the 6th day of
August, 2020 in Instrument No. 2018-00058476, and as shown on the Winchester Road Condominium plat recorded in
Instrument No. 2018-00071705, respectively, in the records in the office of the Judge of Probate of Madison County,
Alabama.
Property 4
Unit 4 of Winchester Road Condominium created under the Alabama Uniform Condominium Act of 1991, Sections 35-8A-
101, et. seq., Code of Alabama (1975), as amended and established by the Declaration of Condominium of Winchester
Road Condominium dated the 3rd day of October, 2018, and recorded on the 9th day of November, 2018, in Instrument
No. 2018-00071707 in the records of the Office of the Judge of Probate of Madison County, Alabama, and as shown in
the Winchester Road Condominium Plat dated the 9th day of November, 2018, and recorded on the 9th day of October,
2018, in Instrument No. 2018-00071705, respectively, in the records of the aforesaid Probate Office, together with the
undivided interest in the common elements and facilities declared in said Declaration to be appurtenance to said
Condominium Unit.
Property 5
101, et. seq., Code of Alabama (1975), as amended and established by the Declaration of Condominium of Winchester
Road Condominium dated the 3rd day of October, 2018, and recorded on the 9th day of November, 2018, in Instrument
No. 2018-00071707 in the records of the Office of the Judge of Probate of Madison County, Alabama, and as shown in
the Winchester Road Condominium Plat dated the 9th day of November, 2018, and recorded on the 9th day of October,
2018, in Instrument No. 2018-00071705, respectively, in the records of the aforesaid Probate Office, together with the

Page 12 of 14
DOCUMENT 100

2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
undivided interest in the common elements and facilities declared in said Declaration to be appurtenance to said
Condominium Unit.
Property 6
Unit 5-B of Winchester Road Condominium, a condominium established by the Declaration of Condominium of
Winchester Toad Condominium dated the 3rd day of October, 2018, and recorded on the 9th day of November, 2018 in
Instrument No. 2018-00071707, as amended by the Amendment to Declaration of Condominium of Winchester Road
Condominium dated the 6th day of August, 2020 and recorded the 6th day of August, 2020 in Instrument No. 2018-
00058476 and shown on the Winchester Road Condominium Plat Re-subdivision of Unit 5 in Instrument No. 2020-
00058475, all of the records in the Office of the Judge of Probate of Madison County, Alabama. TOGETHER WITH the
undivided interest in the common elements and facilities declared in said Declaration and the Amendment thereto to be an
Property 7
101. Et seq., Code of Alabama (1975), as amended, and as established by the Declaration of Condominium of the
Winchester Road Condominium dated 3rd Day of October 2018, and recorded the 9th Day of November 2018, an
Instrument No. 2018-00071707 in the records of the Office of the Judge of Probate of Madison County, Alabama, and as
shown on the Winchester Road Condominium Plat dated the 9th day of November, 2018, and recorded on the 9th Day of
October 2018, Instrument No. 2018-0071705, respectively, in the records of the aforesaid Probate Office. TOGETHER
WITH the undivided interest in the common elements and facilities declared in said Declaration to be appurtenance to
said Condominium Unit.
Property 8
shown on the Winchester Road Condominium Plat dated the 9th day of November 2018, and recorded on the 9th Day of
October 2018, Instrument No. 2018-0071705, respectively, in the records of the aforesaid Probate Office. TOGETHER
Property 9
Winchester Road Condominium dated 3rd Day of October 2018, and recorded the 9th Day of November, 2018, an
shown on the Winchester Road Condominium Plat dated the 9th day of November. 2018, and recorded on the 9th Day of
November, 2018, Instrument No. 2018-0071705, respectively, in the records of the aforesaid Probate Office. TOGETHER
Property 10
Unit 1 of Winchester Road Condominium, a Condominium established by the Declaration of Condominium of the
Instrument No. 2018-00071707 and as amended by the Amendment to the Declaration of Condominium of Winchester
Road Condominium dated the 6th day of August 2020 and recorded on the 6th day of August, 2020 in Instrument No.
2018-00058476, and as shown on the Winchester Road Condominium Plat recorded in Instrument No. 2018-00071705,
respectively, in the records in the Office of the Judge of Probate of Madison County, Alabama. Together with the

Page 13 of 14
DOCUMENT 100

2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
undivided interest in the common elements and facilities declared in said Declaration and the Amendment thereto to be

Page 14 of 14
DOCUMENT 101
12/20/2024 7:11 PM
47-CV-2022-901126.01
CIRCUIT COURT OF
DEBRA KIZER, CLERK
,,
. 'itl
,,F! ,:... . -
# t8t,:.' 'i- ,':'::
| .t::.,
ORDER
am rs rre
i. " . ., j
J,, ,IHII
,:,l ,.,..?i
DOCUMENT 101
f;-*.t"
IN IIIE CIf,EUIT CCINT ffi MAI'BMI MI.'}ITT,
AI.ABA}{A
trrffimmn'efiDmrms
HBCtsMATrffim,Dm,ltED CIYI.CASI&C1FiUI8
MADAG{ OO(I{TY lrmltttl COInO
CAEI{EISlltlf
gE[E&
fm8il, ttb GEt lrudaordlrln firoano U f dry C

ISF&?48 idhrtuttL C{Iri h&Jub&tolnryDdlfh.tb
ctr*rtd
f|IIE!AS, r[.il Sd* e!trn &
Darrr Um trnis!, ffhC r[E!
Rcffi DoLlttrr& t iorrl&drlffic& giAdrhd
lloq,cd
tb Co*cddeiry thr lrE4 tte Colt 0ndr fut fir Gqtt*
Ei1stry }31ridplFor d vi[ oce& ory mc nrcry
huttofr!'l.dryof
4-fit
ffi$I.hfu t *'*
orlrll&ru5nsfiru{ ! anlr roto G trvllor
'; -t
!
lr-
C-}
t
&
- II
Ci SIAT€ OfAKBAUA
aa,
d *
lr.
i
,:
:
. :,
,r8FRr
:'
I
',:
88S
ti i':'-ll .
DOCUMENT 101

Kornis and Eaton emergency motion response

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kornis and Eaton emergency motion response

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kornis and Eaton emergency motion response

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AlaFile E-Notice

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING

ROBERT MATTHEWS ET AL V. DOUGLAS C. MARTINSON II ET AL

The following matter was FILED on 12/20/2024 7:11:38 PM

C001 MATTHEWS ROBERT

Notice Date: 12/20/2024 7:11:38 PM

Robert Matthews, an individual, )

MATTHEWS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY

The Matthews submit their initial Response to the “Emergency

The Petitioners Motion for Emergency Motion for Entry of Order

Where Petitioners blame the Respondents for the State of Alabama

Circuit Court could have never obtained jurisdiction because there is no

verified there was never a real property transaction involving Marzie

or made without jurisdiction2; an order obtained by ex parte

1. The Petitioners claim title to the property. In their

(Supplemental Submission p. 1.)

2. But the Petitioners can show no ruling which conveys title to

rule on it. Therefore, in order to justify the imposition of any sanctions

8. According to their own position taken already in this Court,

Petitioner’s claims of title. In their Supplement, the Petitioners argue

to forthwith supplement its Order of May 14, 2024.

Respondents do not possess title in their individual capacity as it remains

(Motion, pp. 1-2.)

17. Of course, the Petitioners’ argument presumes the viability of

1994) (same). "Whether a judgment is void is a question of law." Ex parte

jurisdictions and ruinous consequences of a bona fide attempt to test such

company relied upon by Martinson, the downstream purchasers and even

29. Most importantly, the relief requested by the Petitioners

(2) prohibiting Plaintiffs-Respondents and their

Probate Court’s office, and with any officer or

(3) prohibiting Plaintiffs-Respondents and their

31. In their Supplement, the Petitioners attempt to trample the

Barger are merely “conspiracy theories.” (Supplemental Submission p.

their work in the Probate Court. This Court has no such

title for the Petitioners exists there.14 The Circuit Clerk,

against them or their counsel for any reason. Such a

government-imposed standards and decide whether to

property rights to the premises where the

326 U.S. 510.

/s/ Franklin H. Eaton, Jr.

/s/ Rick Kornis

R6: Matihews cas€s - 47-Cv-1999-2288 and 47-CV-2022-901126

Oear Mr. Kornls;

cc: Ail parties to 47"CV-202?.HI1126 (via emeill

Ser Erhibit'A' attachtd.

tffiffr,S.Fffi.- I hrw hcrcunto !€t ey hcEd rad c.rl oa tDc ?o.ot

Cissuir Ooll't h Cilil Aslion otrrbcr CI&8a€0EDP, rnll tsGd lt notld

wHEfiEtrs, on rhc trldry d .

NOW, IIIE8EFOiE itr conridintion of thc pr.tni.a .rd o(,1* t/'o O

. o.*-..*...,.,* .*.- .., -(L *-*.*'"_.q**_r*_

fO HAVE AIID TO BOID tra .bofl dG..ribtrl lot 6 grEc.L ot

IN IE8IMONIa WHEREOP, I Xelrt h.rEu$o let ny hsrd rnd

l. fia la|deder.4 r Uot t, hrbli., ln l,d k trld Shr. d f.tgr.,

urd., my h.nd llld Efirid t€d oD ttlo ,rk:!4, C

Eo!{cloaTirfe: DaldEoo! lE, PiE.39t

$:Djeq ro Light-oGrit lor . Frl}Uc ,e.C on lhr Sor1l! Adc q, tlr

.Ind r! lhglru on d€ rrgt[ dwEy tnlt al hored I{o, $a3€(Z) .trC.s

. IO IIAVE .f,llD I1f, HOLD, rhc .bcrr dcrdrlbed tot o[ DEE I ot

_-.-^_glT:.L d9e!. in- he! cep..ity .r rcrdrrt 8.F!..r(rriv. ot..,idl

l, ill' und.tliEred, r Ndry hlllE, ln rtrd 16r rdd AtrL rt LEga,

. o.-.....,.,* ..- .., -(L -.'"_.q**_r*_