47 N.E.3d 686
Mass. App. Ct.2016Background
- Plaintiff Richard Abrahamson sued decedent John LeBold in Ohio in Sept. 2012; LeBold died Dec. 5, 2012.
- Ohio trial court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction on Jan. 22, 2013; Abrahamson appealed.
- While appeal pending, LeBold's counsel filed a Suggestion of Death and the estate was substituted as defendant in the Ohio appeal.
- Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal on Dec. 6, 2013 (one year + 1 day after death).
- Abrahamson filed a new suit in Massachusetts on July 3, 2014 (more than one year after death).
- Superior Court granted the estate’s motion to dismiss, holding G. L. c. 190B § 3-803(a) (one-year limitations against estates) governs and bars relief; equitable relief may be granted only by the SJC under § 3-803(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the savings statute G. L. c. 260 § 32 saves Abrahamson's claims | § 32 allows a new action within one year after dismissal for form (Ohio dismissal was a matter of form), so Massachusetts suit is timely | Special probate statute (G. L. c. 190B § 3-803(a)) is inconsistent and shorter, so it controls under G. L. c. 260 § 19 | Held: § 3-803(a) governs; savings statute inapplicable because the probate statute is a special, shorter limitations period |
| Whether the one-year probate limit conflicts with general limitations periods in G. L. c. 260 | § 32 should apply to preserve claims despite procedural dismissal | The probate statute’s one-year bar reflects distinct legislative purpose to expedite estate settlement and is therefore inconsistent with G. L. c. 260 periods | Held: statutes are inconsistent in length and purpose; the probate statute prevails |
| Whether legislative history supports applying savings clause | Abrahamson points to historic savings clause in prior probate statute | Legislature omitted the savings clause when adopting the MUPC in 2008, evidencing intent to exclude it | Held: omission was purposeful; prior savings clause not retained, so cannot be read into current statute |
| Whether equitable relief is available in Superior Court | Actual notice to estate via Ohio proceedings should allow equitable tolling/relief | G. L. c. 190B § 3-803(e) reserves equitable relief for the SJC only | Held: Superior Court correctly denied equitable relief; only SJC may grant equity relief under § 3-803(e) |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Brien v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 405 Mass. 439 (discusses special statute inconsistency with G. L. c. 260)
- Maltz v. Smith Barney, Inc., 427 Mass. 560 (inconsistency occurs when special statute sets a different limitations length)
- Gates v. Reilly, 453 Mass. 460 (probate statute purpose: expedite settlement of estates)
- New England Trust Co. v. Spaulding, 310 Mass. 424 (historic purpose of probate limitations to close estates)
- Cannonball Fund, Ltd. v. Dutchess Capital Mgmt., LLC, 84 Mass. App. Ct. 75 (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is a "matter of form" under § 32)
- Ellis v. Department of Industrial Accs., 463 Mass. 541 (statutory language deleted by legislature cannot be judicially read back in)
- Carroll v. Worcester, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 628 (comparison where special and general limitations matched)
- Ford v. Commissioner of Correction, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 1127 (legislative amendments show intent to shorten probate limitations)