559 F.Supp.3d 52
D.R.I.2021Background
- Donelson C. Glassie died in 2011 after two marriages; Georgia Glassie (plaintiff) is a child of the second marriage and claims a 10% residual interest in his estate.
- Paul Doucette (executor and son‑in‑law), Thomas Glassie, and John Taft are defendants; Georgia alleges they mismanaged the estate, gave preferential treatment to first‑marriage beneficiaries, concealed information, and took excessive fees.
- Georgia filed federal claims including RICO and various state torts seeking compensatory damages for diminution of her share; many allegations turn on estate transactions and valuations.
- Probate proceedings remain open in Rhode Island (consolidated with Superior Court litigation), and no final accounting has occurred.
- The district court found that resolving Georgia’s claims would require valuation/accounting of estate assets and an assessment of the executor’s administration—matters squarely within the probate court’s exclusive province—and dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction under the probate exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the probate exception bar federal jurisdiction over Georgia's RICO (federal‑question) claim? | RICO is a federal cause of action independent of probate, so federal courts may adjudicate it. | The RICO relief would require valuing the estate and an accounting, interfering with ongoing probate. | Probable exception applies; RICO claim cannot proceed because adjudication would entail estate valuation/accounting. |
| Does the probate exception bar diversity jurisdiction for Georgia's state‑law tort claims? | Diversity confers jurisdiction over in personam claims against executor and co‑defendants. | Claims seek remedies (damages, accounting, removal of executor) that intrude on probate administration. | Claims dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction under the probate exception. |
| Can labeling claims as in personam against the executor avoid the probate exception? | Yes—in personam suits against fiduciaries are outside the in rem probate bar. | Substance controls; if relief requires accounting or affects the res, form is irrelevant. | Court rejects the label; substance requires probate accounting so exception applies. |
| May the federal court award damages or other relief without disturbing the probate court's control of the res? | Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and other relief without directly probating the will. | Any meaningful damages calculation or relief requires a final accounting/valuation of estate assets now in probate custody. | Court held it cannot calculate damages or order relief without intruding on probate; dismissal followed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006) (probate exception is limited: federal courts may not probate/annul wills, administer estates, or dispose of property in state probate custody).
- Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490 (1946) (historical scope of probate exception—federal courts should not interfere with probate court custody of property).
- Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992) (domestic‑relations exception is similarly limited and judicially created).
- Jimenez v. Rodriguez‑Pagan, 597 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2010) (probate exception inapplicable where property at issue was not in probate court custody and relief did not amount to estate distribution).
- Mulet v. De la Fuente, 228 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D.P.R. 2002) (federal adjudication that would require premature accounting/assessment of estate administration is barred by the probate exception).
- Stuart v. Hatcher, [citation="757 F. App'x 807"] (11th Cir. 2018) (claims alleging executor mismanagement before probate finalization require estate valuation/accounting and fall within probate exception).