163 A.3d 832
Me.2017Background
- Jean Quayle Johnson died testate in 2015; her will devised a one-half interest in JKJ Property Group, LLC and one-half of The Colony Cottages, Inc. to her sister, Barbara C. Crane.
- Crane was informally appointed personal representative of Jean’s estate by the Hancock County Probate Court and filed for informal probate.
- Kerry A. Johnson and Kathleen A. Thommen (joined later by two siblings as interested parties) sued Crane alleging: (1) tortious interference with an expected inheritance (fraudulent inducement that Crane would distribute or sell the properties and share proceeds) and (2) breach of contract (an alleged agreement between Jean and Crane to distribute or sell and divide proceeds).
- The Superior Court granted Crane’s M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion, dismissing Count I under Shine v. Dodge and M.R. Civ. P. 9(b), and dismissing Count II under the statute of frauds.
- On appeal the plaintiffs argued the complaint sufficiently pleaded tortious interference and fraud particularity and that the statute of frauds was inapplicable because of partial performance. The Supreme Judicial Court concluded the claims were not ripe and vacated the judgment, remanding for dismissal without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness — whether claims are fit for adjudication while estate remains open | Claims ripe now because Crane’s alleged promises and refusal to disclose intentions create present legal injury | Not ripe: estate not closed, Crane hasn’t taken possession or final accounting; remedies via Probate Court remain | Claims not ripe; dismissal should be without prejudice until estate closed |
| Tortious interference with expectancy — viability of fraud-based claim | Complaint alleges fraud inducing will to bequeath property to Crane with promise to divide or sell and distribute proceeds | Promise to take future action cannot support fraud (Shine); also insufficient particularity under Rule 9(b) | Court did not decide merits due to ripeness; ripeness disposition forecloses addressing Shine/9(b) arguments now |
| Breach of contract — effect of statute of frauds | Contract enforceable; partial performance by Jean negates statute of frauds bar | Contract barred by statute of frauds absent signed writing | Court declined to reach statute-of-frauds issue because claim not ripe pending probate resolution |
| Available remedies while probate open | Plaintiffs need judicial determination in Superior Court now to protect expectancy and obtain damages | Probate remedies exist (petition to compel accounting/distribution under 18‑A M.R.S. § 3‑1002); Superior Court relief premature | Plaintiffs should pursue probate remedies first; Superior Court action is premature and not justiciable now |
Key Cases Cited
- Shine v. Dodge, 157 A. 318 (Me. 1931) (promise of future action generally will not support fraud claim)
- Lamson v. Cote, 775 A.2d 1134 (Me. 2001) (adjudication of a right dependent on ownership is not ripe until ownership is established)
- Wagner v. Sec’y of State, 663 A.2d 564 (Me. 1995) (courts decide only concrete, immediate legal controversies)
- Morrill v. Morrill, 712 A.2d 1039 (Me. 1998) (elements of tortious interference with an expectancy)
- Deering Ice Cream Corp. v. Colombo, 598 A.2d 454 (Me. 1991) (contract damages measured by expectation interest)