Estate of John Jennings v. William Cumming
82 A.3d 132
Me.2013Background
- William Cumming was appointed conservator for John Jennings in 2006; John’s siblings George and Janetta signed a conservatorship bond as sureties for ~$282,922.
- Cumming reimbursed himself from John’s accounts; Probate Court approved a first accounting though later disputes arose over additional reimbursements totaling about $58,403.67.
- John sued Cumming (and named the sureties George and Janetta) in Superior Court for misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duty, and on the probate bond; Cumming filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and a compromise order resolved part of his liability.
- At a 2011 bench trial John and Janetta attended; George, properly noticed, did not appear and a default judgment was entered against him for $58,403.67 plus interest and costs, incorporating an agreement regarding priority of recovery.
- George moved under M.R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) to set aside the judgment as void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing (1) Probate Court had exclusive jurisdiction under 18-A M.R.S. § 5-402 and (2) John needed probate-judge authorization under 18-A M.R.S. § 8-313 before suing in Superior Court.
- The Superior Court denied the motion; the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Superior Court had jurisdiction over John’s suit against conservator and sureties | John: claim against conservator is a "claim" under 18-A M.R.S. § 5-402(3), giving Superior Court concurrent jurisdiction | George: disputes about misappropriation and estate administration fall under Probate Court’s exclusive jurisdiction per § 5-402(2) | Court: Superior Court has concurrent jurisdiction over conservator misconduct claims under § 5-402(3); § 8-309 specifically confers concurrent jurisdiction over actions on probate bonds |
| Whether probate judge authorization under 18-A M.R.S. § 8-313 was required before suing in Superior Court | John: authorization not required; prior statutory scheme and legislative history show judge’s authorization is permissive | George: "may" in § 8-313 means judge’s authorization is required as a jurisdictional precondition | Court: § 8-313 is permissive; probate judge’s authorization is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to commencing a suit in Superior Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Carmel v. McSorley, 791 A.2d 102 (Me. 2002) (review standard for M.R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) jurisdictional challenges)
- Central Me. Power Co. v. Devereux Marine, Inc., 68 A.3d 1262 (Me. 2013) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Plimpton v. Gerrard, 668 A.2d 882 (Me. 1995) (right to jury trial in civil suits contrasts with Probate Court procedure)
- Guardianship of Zachary Z., 677 A.2d 550 (Me. 1996) (Probate Code promotes judicial efficiency and simplified process)
- Woodbury v. Hammond, 54 Me. 332 (Me. 1866) (historical protection of surety rights in common law courts)