A common perception is that all "probate litigation" is heard in
the probate court, but a recent superior court decision reminds us
of the importance of distinguishing lore from the law.
It is not true that any action involving a trust or an estate
must be brought in the probate court. In fact, the exclusive
jurisdiction of the probate court is somewhat limited. Many trust
and estate disputes can be filed in either the probate court, the
superior court, the Supreme Judicial Court, or even federal
district court. There may be advantages and disadvantages in
bringing a trust or estate action in each of the courts. When
choosing the proper court, a practitioner should be mindful of
these considerations and make an informed decision that maximizes
the chances of success.
Rutledge v. Chaprales
In Rutledge v. Chaprales,1 the Middlesex
Superior Court addressed the question of whether the superior court
has jurisdiction to hear equitable claims concerning assets of an
estate brought by the plaintiff, as the personal representative of
the estate. The plaintiff sought equitable relief in the form of a
declaration that certain real property is property of the estate,
an accounting of funds collected in connection with the property,
and an order that all funds identified in the accounting be paid
over to the estate. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss,
arguing that the probate court has exclusive subject matter
jurisdiction over the action.
The superior court denied defendants' motion. In so doing, the
court issued a concise decision, reciting the codified principle
that the superior court has concurrent subject matter jurisdiction
with the probate court and the Supreme Judicial Court over matters
of equity relative to the administration of estates of deceased
persons. The court also noted that it has subject matter
jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments.
As the Rutledge decision makes clear, it is important
for practitioners to know which types of trust and estate disputes
can and cannot be heard in superior court. An awareness of these
jurisdictional rules not only precludes the filing of an ill-fated
motion to dismiss, but it also can serve as a strategic tool to
maximize the client's chances of success. Depending on the nature
of the claim, certain actions must be brought in the probate court,
while other actions may be commenced in either the probate court,
the superior court, the Supreme Judicial Court, or even federal
district court. Making a considered and strategic decision about
where to file at the outset of a case can pay dividends down the
road.
Overlapping jurisdiction
Despite its reputation as a clearinghouse for everything
relating to trusts and estates, the probate court's exclusive
subject matter jurisdiction is actually limited. Under G.L. c. 215,
§ 3, only the following matters must be brought in the probate
court: the probate of wills; administration of estates; will
contests; appointment of guardians and conservators; petitions for
the adoption of children; and name changes.
All actions over which the probate court does not have exclusive
jurisdiction may be brought in other courts. Most notably, the
probate court shares concurrent jurisdiction with the superior
court and the Supreme Judicial Court. Under G.L. c. 215, § 6, the
superior court and Supreme Judicial Court can hear all cases and
matters of equity cognizable under the general principles of equity
jurisprudence. As the superior court noted in Rutledge,
this broad and inclusive language applies to all cases and matters
in which equitable relief is sought relative to administration of
estates. It also applies to actions seeking equitable relief in
connection with wills and trusts, whether created by will, other
written instrument, or parol. These general categories of equitable
actions encompass many of the most fundamental trust and estate
claims, such as complaints for instructions and trust reformation
actions.
It is also common to assert claims for declaratory judgment in
connection with a trust or other testamentary instrument. As with
actions seeking equitable relief as defined in G.L. c. 215, § 6,
the probate court, the superior court, and the Supreme Judicial
Court have overlapping jurisdiction to make binding declarations of
right, duty, status and other legal relations under G.L. c. 231A, §
1.
It is not only state courts that have jurisdiction over trust
and estate disputes. Federal district court is another possible
forum for bringing a trust or estate action, assuming subject
matter jurisdiction exists, either by diversity of the parties or
the existence of a federal question. In Marshall v.
Marshall,2 a.k.a. the Anna Nicole Smith
Case, the U.S. Supreme Court took the occasion to clarify the
ability of federal district courts to hear trust and estate
matters. Under the longstanding "probate exception," federal
district courts have no jurisdiction to probate a will or
administer an estate, and cannot dispose of property that is in the
custody of a state probate court. The Supreme Court noted, however,
that some lower courts have used the probate exception to block
federal jurisdiction over a range of matters well beyond probate of
a will or administration of an estate. While upholding the probate
exception, as properly defined, the Supreme Court ruled that a
federal district court can adjudicate matters outside its confines,
as long as they otherwise fall within the court's subject matter
jurisdiction.
In light of the foregoing principles, the inevitable question
becomes which forum offers the greatest chance of success. Although
success can never be guaranteed, some general guidelines are
readily apparent.
Where to file
Probate court remains the default option for trust and estate
disputes, and for good reason. Judges in the probate court have the
most experience hearing these types of matters and possess
expertise in trust and estate law. Accordingly, if a case involves
esoteric questions of trust or estate law, filing in probate court
increases the likelihood that the judge will more readily recognize
the questions presented. In addition, filing in probate court may
be the most efficient way to resolve the dispute. Consider, for
example, when heirs at law wish to contest a will and to challenge
a trust. The will contest must be brought in the probate court but
the trust matter could be brought as an equity action in the
probate court or elsewhere. By commencing both actions in the
probate court, the actions can then be easily consolidated and the
practitioner can avoid duplicative efforts and the attendant wasted
time and expense.
Another possible advantage of filing in probate court is that an
exception to the "American Rule" - pursuant to which each party
bears its own fees and costs in litigation - exists in probate
court. Under G.L. c. 215, § 45, the probate court has broad
discretion to shift the reasonable fees and costs of the prevailing
party to the losing party. As the Supreme Judicial Court recently
held in Estate of King,3 the probate court has
discretion to shift fees and costs pursuant to this statute even
when the claims or defenses of the losing party were not wholly
insubstantial and frivolous, as would be required under G.L. c.
231, § 6F.
Superior court - including the Business Litigation Session,
which provides the advantage of having the same judge during the
pendency of a case - may be desirable when the trust or estate
questions are relatively straightforward, but other questions or
the underlying facts implicate other areas of law or expertise. One
recurring situation involves a closely-held family company and a
trust in which the shares of the family company are held.
Oftentimes, family members will serve as both trustees of the trust
and officers of the company. In these circumstances, the plaintiff
may contend that the family members have breached their fiduciary
obligations as trustees and as officers. To the extent that laws
governing corporate governance and the fiduciary duties owed within
a closely-held corporation (or partnership or limited liability
company) will carry the day, filing the action in superior court
could make good sense.
Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's clarification of the probate
exception in the Anna Nicole Smith case, practitioners ought to use
caution when bringing trust and estate actions in federal district
court. Even if doing so is technically proper - say, for example,
because diversity jurisdiction exists - a plaintiff runs the risk
that the federal judge will not be as familiar with the vagaries of
the commonwealth's trust and estate laws. There is also the
perception that the action is better suited to state probate court.
Hence, although the predictability and speed with which matters can
move through federal district court can be attractive, including
the mandatory disclosure rules that can streamline the discovery
process, it is generally only when a matter also involves questions
of federal law, such as alleged federal securities violations, that
federal district court should be considered as a viable alternative
to probate court or superior court.
Likewise, practitioners ought to avoid commencing actions in the
Supreme Judicial Court under its original, general equity
jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is not exclusive in the Supreme
Judicial Court, but it is concurrent with that given to the probate
and superior courts. Even if a trust or estate dispute properly
invokes the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Judicial Court, as
a practical matter, the Court may transfer the action to a lower
court for trial or other action, and the court to which it is
transferred will have jurisdiction over the action, subject to
appeal, under G.L. c. 211, § 4A.
One exception is a trust reformation action seeking to give
effect to a settlor's tax planning objectives. For the Internal
Revenue Service to recognize such a reformation, it must be allowed
by the Supreme Judicial Court.4 If there are no factual
disputes, these so-called Bosch actions perhaps should be
filed in the single justice session of the Supreme Judicial Court.
Doing so obviates the need to jump through several procedural
hoops, including having the probate court reserve and report
without decision and filing an application for direct appellate
review.
Consider the options
A practitioner should use care when selecting a forum to bring a
trust or estate action. Sometimes the decision will be easy - will
contests, as noted, must be brought in probate court. Other times,
however, an action may be filed in multiple courts with overlapping
jurisdiction. Deciding where to file can be just as important as
deciding what to file, and perhaps the former decision might
influence the latter. The point is that there may be options and so
the knee-jerk decision to file in probate court may not always be
the best decision strategically.
Notes
1. No. 09-2953, 2009 Mass. Super. LEXIS 367
(Dec. 2, 2009).
2. 547 U.S. 293, 310-12 (2006).
3. 455 Mass. 796 (2010).
4. See Comm'r v. Bosch, 387 U.S. 456
(1967).
The Authors
Mark E. Swirbalus is a partner at Day
Pitney LLP and leads the firm's Probate Litigation and
Controversies Group in Boston. He represents individual and
institutional clients in trust and estate matters, and he speaks
and writes frequently on issues relating to trust and estate
litigation.
Douglass C. Lawrence is an associate in the
Boston office of Day Pitney LLP and a member of the Probate
Litigation and Controversies Group. Prior to joining the firm, he
served as a law clerk to the Hon. Edward F. Harrington of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts and to the Hon.
Robert G. Flanders Jr. of the Rhode Island Supreme Court.