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 6/20/2025 10:29:46 PM

C001 MATTHEWS ROBERT

C002 MATTHEWS KEVIN D.
MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY
[Filer: KORNIS PAUL RICKY]

Notice Date: 6/20/2025 10:29:46 PM

DEBRA KIZER
CIRCUIT COURT CLERK
MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA
MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA
100 NORTHSIDE SQUARE
HUNTSVILLE, AL, 35801

256-532-3390
 DOCUMENT 256
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
6/20/2025 10:29 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 C002 - MATTHEWS KEVIN D.

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
6/20/2025 10:28:21 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 257
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
6/20/2025 10:29 PM
47-CV-2022-901126.01
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA
DEBRA KIZER, CLERK
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA

ROBERT MATTHEWS, )
)
KEVIN D. MATTHEWS, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) 47-CV-2022-901126.01
)
DOUGLAS C. MARTINSON, II, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

MOTION TO ALTER, AMEND, OR VACATE ORDER OF CONTEMPT

The Plaintiffs, Robert Matthews and Kevin D. Matthews, through their counsel, Rick
Kornis and Franklin H. Eaton, Jr., and respectfully move this Honorable Court, pursuant to Rule
59(e) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, to alter, amend, or vacate its Order dated May
21, 2025 and May 28, 2025 Supplemental Order, finding the Plaintiffs and their Counsel in
contempt. In support of this motion, Plaintiffs Robert Matthews and Kevin D. Matthews state as
follows:

1. Legal Standard Under Rule 59(e). This Court may alter, amend, or vacate a judgment
to correct errors of law or prevent manifest injustice. The contempt order is void ab initio
due to multiple procedural and substantive defects, including lack of jurisdiction,
violations of due process, unlawful interference with estate administration, improper ex
parte communications, unauthorized use of a deceased person’s deed, and reliance on
invalid title determinations, resulting in manifest injustice.

2. Lack of Jurisdiction Over Other Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs Ludie M. Hall, Loutricia M.

Quinones, and other named plaintiffs have never been served with process in this case, as
required by Rule 4 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. Consequently, this Court
has never obtained personal jurisdiction over these plaintiffs, rendering all orders,
including the May 21, 2025, contempt order, void as to them. See Ex parte Terminix Int'l
Co., 779 So. 2d 1177 (Ala. 2000) (court lacks jurisdiction over unserved parties).

1
 DOCUMENT 257

Attorneys Rick Kornis and Franklin H. Eaton, Jr. represent only Robert Matthews and
Kevin D. Matthews, and no counsel has appeared for the unserved plaintiffs.

3. Bar Prosecution of Kevin Matthews ends with Kevin being completely vindicated.
Alabama State Bar Commissioner Douglas Martinson solicited the assistance of Mark
Moody, an Assistant General Counsel and liaison to the Unauthorized Practice of Law
Committee and Lisa Browning an Investigator/Paralegal assigned to the UPL Committee
to bring false charges against Kevin Matthews alleging that he was guilty of a UPL. The
purported complainant, Mr. George Sapp, was wholly unaware of the charges, the UPL
Committee was never involved, and there was literally no evidence of the alleged UPL.
Martinson planned to use the arrest to quiet Kevin’s many painful revelations about
Martinson’s defalcations when he ostensibly represented the Estate of Pierce Matthews –
Kevin’s father.
A. Kevin Matthews learned that Martinson did not represent his father’s estate
because Martinson and his law partner, George Beason, were already representing
at least one creditor to the Estate. The conflict of interest prevents Martinson
from acting as counsel to the Estate. Every document Martinson filed on behalf
of the Estate was improper as against the Matthews and misrepresentations to the
Court.
B. Martinson improperly obtained Pierce Matthews Estate’s personal property, sold
it and kept the proceeds. Martinson appropriated approximately $250,000 in cash.
Martinson also appropriated the 22 acres belonging to the family, now worth
approximately $80 Million.
C. Martinson wanted to silence Kevin Matthews’ steady flow of very damaging
information he was obtaining in his role as Personal Representative. However,
when Kevin explained to the Bar that the UPL charges were baseless and
unsubstantiated and the charges were pursued without any evidence. The
ostensible reason: the complainant was anonymous. One more mistruth was told
to end the charade.
D. The effect of the defeat of Martinson and the State Bar Association cannot be
overstated. The full weight of the State Bar was bought down on Kevin

2
 DOCUMENT 257

Matthews, his arrest was being planned by local law enforcement in Huntsville
before he submitted his answer to the charges.
E. Similarly, the basis for the contempt ruling made by this Court is nonexistent.
Judge Day, who authorized the Petitioners to submit their claims of contempt
never determined whether he had subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, the
Orders said to have been violated by the Matthews and their counsel are nullities
and can support no contempt or sanctions claims.
1. Circuit Clerk Debra Kizer has made abundantly clear that there is no
record in the Private Sale Action. This is the lawsuit upon which
Martinson and every downstream purchaser derives their claims of title –
through the Clerk’s Deed issued in that case. The same Clerk’s Deed that
Ms. Kizer has determined does not exist. Further, if it did exist, it was so
defectively drawn (it relied on the deed of a dead man to convey title) that
no title ever transferred.
2. There is not, and never has been a joint deed between Marzie Patton and
her mother, Carrie Matthews as contended by the defendant’s counsel all
throughout the case up until the revelation of Clerk Debra Kizer. This
joint deed is essential to create subject matter jurisdiction for the Private
Sale, and specifically what the Plaintiff’s sought when the Clear Title
Action began, but was denied discovery by Judge Day almost immediately
upon being assigned the case. Multiple requests were made by the Plaintiff
for this one document that allegedly existed for which the Defendants
relied upon as their chief defense to the action. All requests were denied.
3. Martinson said that Stewart Title Company insured title to the property
from the beginning. However, the title insurer has stated in response to a
subpoena for documents evidencing such coverage that it has no
responsive documents, also contradicting the Defendant’s argument for
possessing lawful title.
4. All Actions After April 25, 2024, Are Void Ab Initio. The Probate Court of Madison
County has certified that the Defendant/Petitioners’ motion to intervene in the Estate of
Carrie H. Matthews (Probate Case No. 67999) was never set for a hearing or granted

3
 DOCUMENT 257

within 90 days, as required by Rule 24 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. Under
Rule 24(c), a motion to intervene is deemed denied if not acted upon within 90 days. As a
result, Defendant/Petitioners lacked standing to participate in subsequent proceedings in
Case No. 67999, rendering all actions in that case and related Circuit Court Case No. 47-
CV-2022-901126.00 after April 25, 2024, void ab initio. See Ex parte City of Huntsville,
684 So. 2d 133 (Ala. 1996) (actions taken without jurisdiction are void). The contempt
and sanctions case (Case No. 47-CV-2022-901126.01) is similarly void, as it derives
from invalid master case orders.

5. Ex Parte Communications Violate Rule 24 and Judicial Canons. The record

demonstrates that Defendant/Petitioners engaged in ex parte communications with
Circuit Court Judge George Day, Jr., as evidenced by their May 17, 2024, "Submissions
in Further Support of Motions of Non-Party Landowners Filed May 2, 2024," filed in the
Estate of Carrie H. Matthews (Case No. 67999). Judge Day’s participation in these
communications, without notice to Plaintiffs, violates Rule 24 and Canon 3(A)(4) of the
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, which prohibit ex parte communications affecting
the merits of a case. Furthermore, the Probate Court lacked authority to accept or act on
these submissions, as Defendant/Petitioners were non-parties due to the un-grantable
intervention motion. These improper communications taint all subsequent orders,
including the May 21, 2025, contempt order, rendering them void. See In re Sheffield,
465 So. 2d 1162 (Ala. 1984) (ex parte communications violate due process and judicial
ethics).

6. Contempt Order Violates Due Process. Even if the master case orders were valid, the
contempt order is void for failure to comply with Rule 70A of the Alabama Rules of Civil
Procedure, which requires a hearing before finding a party in contempt. A hearing was
scheduled for July 7, 2025, but the Court issued the contempt order prematurely on May
21, 2025, without affording Plaintiffs Robert Matthews, Kevin D. Matthews, and their
counsel an opportunity to be heard. This violates their due process rights under the
Alabama Constitution, Article I, § 6, and the U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment.
See Ex parte Allison, 731 So. 2d 1210 (Ala. 1998) (contempt order without hearing

4
 DOCUMENT 257

violates due process). Further, this court has also denied all pending motions without
being heard, as well as, filed without the Plaintiffs having the opportunity to timely file
their Motion to Alter, Amend and Vacate the sanctions order.

7. False Reporting to Alabama State Bar. The Court improperly reported the void
contempt order to the Alabama State Bar, as evidenced by the grievance notice dated
May 29, 2025 (CSP 2025-499), seeking to impose sanctions and discipline on Plaintiffs’
counsel, Franklin H. Eaton, Jr., and Rick Kornis. This action constitutes a color of law
violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as it uses judicial authority to unlawfully harm
counsel’s professional standing. The Court’s adoption of Judge Day’s void orders,
despite warnings, and its assistance in Defendant/Petitioners’ alleged identity theft and
tax fraud, breaches Canon 2 of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, which requires
judges to avoid impropriety.

8. Illegal Interference with Estate Administration. The Court illegally interfered with the
administration of the Estate of Pierce S. Matthews (Probate Case No. 80309) by issuing a
void writ of mandamus, which purported to direct actions in that case. This writ is void
due to the Court’s lack of jurisdiction, stemming from the un-grantable intervention
motion in the Estate of Carrie H. Matthews (Case No. 67999) and ex parte
communications. Such interference violates Alabama Code § 12-11-30, which limits
circuit court authority over probate matters, and constitutes an additional color of law
violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Ex parte Boykin, 656 So. 2d 821 (Ala. Civ. App.
1995) (circuit court lacks authority to interfere with probate administration absent proper
jurisdiction).

9. Unauthorized Use of Deceased’s Deed and Failure to Heed Trustee’s Notice. Neither
Judge Day nor this Court has provided any legal authority permitting
Defendant/Petitioners to use the deed of the deceased Pierce S. Matthews as their source
of title. Such use, without proper transfer through probate or other lawful means, is
invalid under Alabama Code § 35-4-20 and may constitute fraudulent misrepresentation
or tax fraud. Plaintiff Kevin D. Matthews, designated as trustee by the Internal Revenue

5
 DOCUMENT 257

Service, has notified all parties, including Madison County and this Court, of his
authority to any use of his father’s identity and deed. The Court’s failure to address this
notice, despite clear warnings, exacerbates its legal and ethical violations, further
necessitating the vacatur of the contempt order.

10. USDA Recognition and Precedence of Heir Deed Over Probate Plaintiffs. Robert
Matthews and Kevin D. Matthews have obtained recognition from the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) affirming their interest in the Matthews Family Land
through an affidavit of heirship, commonly referred to as an Heir Deed. Under Alabama
Code § 35-4-26, an affidavit of heirship is a valid and recognized method to establish
heirship and transfer real property without probate, provided it is executed by at least two
disinterested persons familiar with the deceased’s family history, notarized, and recorded
in the county’s land records. The USDA’s acceptance of this Heir Deed, as authorized by
the 2018 Farm Bill (7 U.S.C. § 2266), confirms its legal sufficiency to establish
Plaintiffs’ ownership interest for federal program eligibility and serves as persuasive
evidence of their rightful claim.
A. In Alabama, an affidavit of heirship takes precedence over probate proceedings
when there is no evidence that all heirs have waived their rights or acquiesced to
the property being converted through probate. See Ware v. Ware, 20 So. 3d 117
(Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (holding that heirs’ rights to property are protected absent
clear evidence of waiver or consent to probate disposition).
B. The record in this case contains no documentation demonstrating that all heirs of
Pierce S. Matthews, including Plaintiffs, waived their inheritance rights or agreed
to the property’s administration through probate in Case No. 80309. Absent such
evidence, the Heir Deed establishes a superior claim to the Matthews Family
Land, and any purported probate transfer, such as the Defendants’ Clerk’s Deed,
is invalid. See also McCurdy v. Samples, 262 Ala. 485, 80 So. 2d 224 (1955)
(affirming that heirs’ interests in real property vest immediately upon the
decedent’s death and cannot be divested without consent or proper legal process).
The Court’s failure to recognize the Heir Deed’s precedence constitutes a
reversible error of law.

6
 DOCUMENT 257

10. Defendants’ Lack of Valid Proof of Title. Defendants rely on a Clerk’s Deed,
purportedly executed in 2001, to claim title. However, Circuit Court Clerk Debra Kizer
confirmed no certified records support this deed (Exhibits 1 and 2, Motion for
Clarification, April 11, 2025). Alabama Rules of Evidence Rule 902(4) and Ex parte
Ghafary, 563 So. 2d 609 (Ala. 1990), require certified records for legal validity. Without
such records, the Clerk’s Deed is invalid, and Defendants cannot demonstrate lawful title.
Defendants’ reliance on the deceased Pierce S. Matthews’ identity to claim title, without
proper transfer, further undermines their claim.

11. Contempt Order Based on Erroneous Title Determination. The contempt order
penalizes Plaintiffs for challenging the title, which the Court assumes is validly held by
Defendants. Given the invalidity of the Clerk’s Deed, the precedence of the USDA-
recognized Heir Deed, and the void nature of prior orders, the Court’s finding is
erroneous. Plaintiffs’ actions were justified to protect their property rights and had a duty
to the joint heirs to safeguard their interests in their family farmland, and the contempt
order results in manifest injustice.

12. Relief Requested. Plaintiffs Robert Matthews and Kevin D. Matthews respectfully
request that the Court:
a. Vacate the May 21, 2025, contempt order and May 28, 2025 supplemental order as
void ab initio;
b. Declare all actions in Case Nos. 47-CV-2022-901126.00 and 901126.01 after April 25,
2024, void due to lack of jurisdiction and ex parte violations;
c. Declare all orders void as to unserved plaintiffs Ludie M. Hall, Loutricia M. Quinones,
et al., for lack of personal jurisdiction;
d. Order the Court to retract its improper report to the Alabama State Bar (CSP 2025-
499);
e. Declare the writ of mandamus interfering with the Estate of Pierce S. Matthews (Case
No. 80309) void and order correction of this color of law violation;
f. Enjoin Defendant/Petitioners from using the deceased Pierce S. Matthews’ deed as a
source of title absent lawful authority;

7
 DOCUMENT 257

g. Reconsider the title issue in light of the USDA-recognized Heir Deed’s precedence and
the invalidity of Defendants’ proof; and
h. Grant such other relief as deemed just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Franklin H. Eaton, Jr.

Franklin H. Eaton, Jr.
3145 Gulf Shores Parkway
Gulf Shores, AL 36542
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Robert Matthews and Kevin D. Matthews

Date: June 20, 2025

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 20, 2025, I served the foregoing to all represented parties via the
Court’s electronic notification system to their counsel of record:

James A. Bradford,
Connor W. Herfurth,
Balch & Bingham LLP,
1901 Sixth Avenue North,
Suite 1500,
Birmingham, AL 35203

Allan S. Jones,
Carr Allison,
100 Vestavia Parkway,
Birmingham, AL 35216

Dustin D. Key,
Harrison & Gammons, P.C.,
2430 L&N Drive,
Huntsville, AL 35801

/s/ Franklin H. Eaton, Jr.