Estate of Peter A. Turcic Sr.
2017 ME 118
| Me. | 2017Background
- Peter A. Turcic Sr. died intestate on October 15, 2013; his daughter Patricia was appointed personal representative on November 12, 2013.
- Peter Jr., the decedent’s son, allegedly suffers from schizophrenia and was living with Patricia at the decedent’s former home.
- Melvin and Ronald Christie (Patricia’s uncle and cousin) petitioned for appointment of guardian and conservator for Peter Jr.; the court granted conservatorship to the Christies.
- The Christies subsequently moved to remove Patricia as personal representative of the estate; the Somerset County Probate Court removed Patricia on April 28, 2016.
- Attorney J. Michael Talbot was later appointed personal representative; Patricia appealed but did not file a Rule 52 motion for findings, a transcript, or a compliant appendix.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the removal, applying the standard that failure to obtain specific findings or a transcript requires assuming facts necessary to support the probate court’s decision and noting pro se litigants are held to the same standards as represented parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probate court abused its discretion in removing Patricia as personal representative | Patricia (pro se) sought to vacate her removal (arguments not coherently presented or supported) | Probate court removal supported by record and conservators’ concerns about Patricia’s ability to care for Peter Jr.; Patricia failed to preserve factual challenges by not filing Rule 52 motion or transcript | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; removal stands |
| Whether appellate review is impeded by failure to file a transcript and Rule 52 motion | Patricia implicitly argued error without providing transcript/findings | Appellee and court argued appellate review limited by Patricia’s procedural defaults | Court assumed facts necessary to support judgment and declined relief |
| Whether pro se status excuses procedural noncompliance with appellate rules | Patricia’s pro se status impliedly argued for leniency | Court maintained pro se litigants are held to same standards as represented litigants | Court enforced rules; pro se status not excusing defaults |
| Whether appointment of successor personal representative should be vacated | Patricia sought to overturn Attorney Talbot’s appointment | Estate defended the appointment as proper after removal | Appointment of Talbot affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of O’Brien-Hamel, 93 A.3d 689 (Me. 2014) (procedural background citation regarding probate record standard)
- Estate of Voignier, 609 A.2d 704 (Me. 1992) (probate court removal of personal representative reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Ehret v. Ehret, 135 A.3d 101 (Me. 2016) (failure to file Rule 52 motion permits appellate assumption that trial court made necessary findings)
- Richards v. Bruce, 691 A.2d 1223 (Me. 1997) (pro se litigants held to same procedural standards as represented litigants)