406 F. App'x 507
2d Cir.2010Background
- Plaintiff Kennedy alleges he is President Kennedy's biological son and seeks a share of the testamentary trust income and principal.
- Defendants are Trustees of the Testamentary Trust established under Kennedy's will for his children.
- District court dismissed Kennedy's complaint: first claim under federal jurisdiction and second claim under probate exception and Rule 12(b)(6).
- Massachusetts law governs the construction of the will, as Kennedy was domiciled in Massachusetts at execution, per New York choice-of-law rules.
- Massachusetts law before 1987 presumed 'children' to mean legitimate children; non-marital descendants were not included unless the donor expressed contrary intent.
- Court holds the probate exception bars claims seeking disposition of property in the custody of a state probate court, but does not bar purely fiduciary-duty claims absent a request to dispose of estate assets.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the probate exception bar the claim to compel payment from the trust? | Kennedy seeks funds from the trust distributions as a beneficiary. | Disbursement of estate assets is within probate, barred from federal court. | Probate exception bars the demand for payment from the trust. |
| Does the complaint state a fiduciary-duty claim for failure to investigate his claim? | Defendants breached by not investigating his entitlement as a potential beneficiary. | No viable beneficiary status under the will; investigation claim fails. | Yes, the claim is dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. |
| What governing law applies to the will's construction? | Massachusetts law should apply to interpret the class definition. | New York law governs choice-of-law; Massachusetts law applies under the will’s domicile. | Massachusetts law applies; the term 'children' excludes nonmarital descendants absent contrary intent. |
| Does Kennedy's non-marital status affect his status as a beneficiary under the term 'children'? | Executive definitions and Ms. Monroe's alleged parentage would include nonmarital children. | No clear intent to include nonmarital children; traditional Massachusetts presumption controls. | Presumption controls; nonmarital issue excluded absent donor intent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lefkowitz v. Bank of New York, 528 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2007) (probate exception applies to seek distributions from estate assets)
- Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (Sup. Ct. 2006) (probate exception reserves probate matters to state courts but allows federal jurisdiction for non-probate issues)
- Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490 (1946) (federal courts cannot dispose of property in custody of state probate court)
- Powers v. Wilkinson, 506 N.E.2d 842 (Mass. 1987) (Massachusetts pre-1987 rule that 'children' generally means marital issue)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941) (apply the law of the domicile at execution for trusts and wills)