55 F.4th 58
1st Cir.2022Background:
- Decedent Donelson Glassie left a will that allocated business interests unevenly among children and a business partner; Elizabeth's husband Paul Doucette was named executor.
- Plaintiff Georgia Glassie is a beneficiary/minority member (≈10% of residuum; small ownership in LLCs) and alleges favored beneficiaries (Elizabeth, Thomas, Taft) benefited from transactions that diminished her share.
- Key transactions alleged: a $50M M&T loan to Mid-Manhattan (estate-guaranteed) and a $22M OceanFirst loan to Historic Inns (estate-guaranteed); Georgia alleges defendants obtained loans by fraud and diverted value to favored beneficiaries.
- Georgia sued in federal court asserting RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962), breach of fiduciary duty (as LLC managers and executor), operating-agreement breaches, fraud, negligence, and civil conspiracy; she seeks in personam damages and RICO fees.
- Rhode Island probate proceedings over Donelson’s estate (including petitions to remove Doucette and appeals) remain pending; the district court dismissed Georgia's federal suit under the probate exception to federal jurisdiction.
- Georgia appealed; the First Circuit considered (1) whether Colorado River abstention applied and (2) whether the probate exception barred federal adjudication of her claims.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Colorado River abstention (parallel-state abstention) | Federal suit needed because state probate will not resolve all federal claims (e.g., RICO, LLC-management issues). | State probate and related proceedings are parallel and counsel abstention to avoid duplicative litigation. | Abstention inappropriate: state actions unlikely to provide complete and prompt resolution of all federal claims. |
| Probate exception — does valuing estate assets/damages require estate administration? | Damages are in personam against defendants; valuing estate-related effects is not the same as a probate accounting or administration. | Any claim requiring valuation of estate assets forces an accounting and thus triggers the probate exception. | Probate exception does not automatically apply merely because damages require valuation of estate assets; accounting/administration is not necessarily required. |
| Breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims against executor | Breach claims seek in personam relief and do not ask the federal court to probate the will or administer the estate. | Breach claims against an executor necessarily implicate estate administration and are barred by the probate exception. | Post-Marshall, fiduciary claims against an executor are not categorically barred; the exception applies only if the suit would probate/annul the will, administer the estate, or dispose of property in the probate court’s custody. |
| Federal RICO/federal-question claims | RICO claim seeks in personam relief and does not require the federal court to act on estate property. | RICO adjudication would interfere with probate and thus be barred by the probate exception. | RICO claim not barred by the probate exception; federal courts may hear in personam federal claims that do not seek control over the res. |
Key Cases Cited
- Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490 (formulated early probate-exception limits on federal interference with probate)
- Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (clarified and narrowed the probate exception: reserves probate/annulment, administration, and disposing of property in state probate custody)
- Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (framework for abstention where parallel state proceedings may warrant stay/dismissal)
- Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (federal courts may not stay/dismiss lightly under Colorado River; must have clear justification)
- Jiménez v. Rodríguez-Pagán, 597 F.3d 18 (1st Cir.) (explains narrowness of Colorado River crevice and cautions about abstention)
- Lefkowitz v. Bank of N.Y., 528 F.3d 102 (2d Cir.) (post-Marshall: probate exception does not bar in personam fiduciary-duty claims that do not seek to reach a res)
- Turton v. Turton, 644 F.2d 344 (5th Cir.) (pre-Marshall case holding federal court could not adjudicate dollar value of plaintiff's share of estate when ordering distribution from estate)
- Jones v. Brennan, 465 F.3d 304 (6th Cir.) (post-Marshall, similar recognition that fiduciary claims seeking in personam relief are not necessarily barred by the probate exception)