In re Gilbert
206 A.3d 910
Me.2019Background
- Decedent John W. Gilbert died in 2012; primary remaining assets were a house and a Harley Davidson motorcycle (total value found by the court: $68,500).
- Judith Gilbert, John's surviving spouse and personal representative, paid estate expenses, claimed statutory allowances/exemptions, and sought distribution in kind; Nathan Gilbert (son) contested valuation, expenses, allowances, and procedural issues.
- This is the third appeal; the Law Court previously remanded for an evidentiary hearing on composition and value of the estate (Estate of Gilbert, 2017 ME 175).
- On remand the Probate Court held multi-day evidentiary hearings, found asset values of $63,500 (real property) and $5,000 (motorcycle), and credited Judith with $40,705.58 in necessary expenses plus $29,000 in allowances/exemptions.
- Because total deductions ($69,705.58) exceeded asset value ($68,500), the court ordered distribution of the estate in kind to Judith; Nathan appealed, asserting legal and factual errors and procedural defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nathan) | Defendant's Argument (Judith/Probate Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fair market value of real property | Value should be $89,500; court undervalued property | Court relied on 2017 assessment records showing $63,500 | Court affirmed $63,500 valuation (supported by record) |
| Necessity and amount of expenses paid by PR | Court overstated reimbursable expenses; ledger and amounts challenged | Judith produced receipts, affidavit for funeral costs, ledger testimony showing taxes/insurance and administrative expenses | Court’s findings of $40,705.58 expenses and $29,587.63 administrative expenses upheld as supported by evidence |
| Family/personal allowance authority | No statutory basis for a $12,000 personal allowance outside statute | Statute authorizes a one-time family allowance (titled family allowance) for surviving spouse not exceeding $12,000 | Court properly awarded the one-time $12,000 family allowance to surviving spouse |
| Use of Probate Code §§ (including §3-906) | §3-906 not applicable to intestate estates; various code provisions misapplied; PR breached fiduciary duties | Article 3 applies to intestate and testate estates; court interpreted statutes correctly and found no prejudicial breach | Court’s statutory interpretation affirmed; no reversible legal error |
| Procedural due process: pretrial conference, recusal, ex parte, expert testimony | Denial of pretrial conference, delayed ruling on recusal, alleged ex parte comments, exclusion of expert violated due process | Court had discretion to deny pretrial conference; recusal motion was later denied on record; no extrajudicial conclusions shown; expert not qualified under rules of evidence | Court’s procedural rulings were within discretion or harmless; expert properly excluded |
| Classification of exempt property (house vs motorcycle) | Judith argued she intended house as exempt property; court categorized motorcycle as exempt | Judith consistently asserted house; court mischaracterized but value unaffected | Misclassification harmless because it did not change estate value or distribution |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Gilbert, 142 A.3d 583 (Me. 2016) (prior appellate decision in same dispute)
- Estate of Gilbert, 169 A.3d 382 (Me. 2017) (remand for evidentiary hearing on estate composition and value)
- Estate of Cabatit v. Canders, 105 A.3d 439 (Me. 2014) (standard of de novo review for statutory interpretation)
- Estate of Plummer, 666 A.2d 116 (Me. 1995) (clear-error standard for probate fact findings)
- Wells v. Powers, 873 A.2d 361 (Me. 2005) (appellate review principles)
- Searles v. Fleetwood Homes of Pa., Inc., 878 A.2d 509 (Me. 2005) (reliability/foundation for expert testimony)
- Estate of Snow, 99 A.3d 278 (Me. 2014) (harmless error requirement on appeal)
- State v. Bard, 181 A.3d 187 (Me. 2018) (standard for evaluating alleged extrajudicial judicial comments)