Kerry A. Johnson v. Barbara C. Crane
2017 ME 113
| 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 appointed personal representative by informal probate in Hancock County Probate Court; the estate remains open and Crane has not submitted a final account or taken possession of the properties.
- Kerry A. Johnson and Kathleen A. Thommen (joined later by two siblings as interested parties) sued Crane in Superior Court alleging: (1) tortious interference with an expected inheritance based on an alleged fraudulent assurance by Crane that she would distribute or sell and divide the properties; and (2) breach of contract based on an alleged agreement between Crane and Jean to distribute the properties or proceeds to the children.
- The Superior Court granted Crane’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, concluding the fraud claim conflicted with the Shine rule, failed Rule 9(b) particularity, and the contract claim was barred by the statute of frauds.
- On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court did not reach those merits defenses because it held the children’s claims were not ripe while the probate estate remains open and Crane may yet distribute the properties or proceeds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the claims justiciable/ripen while estate remains open? | Claims are ripe; factual allegations suffice to proceed now. | Not ripe; estate not closed, Crane hasn’t taken possession, remedies premature. | Not ripe; dismissal without prejudice ordered. |
| Does the complaint state fraud (tortious interference) with sufficient particularity under M.R. Civ. P. 9(b)? | Allegations identify fraudulent inducement by Crane to secure the bequest and promise to distribute proceeds. | Alleged promises are future acts and lack required particularity. | Court did not resolve due to ripeness; merits not reached. |
| Does Shine v. Dodge bar fraud claims based on promises to act in the future? | The children contend Shine does not preclude their theory given the alleged fraudulent inducement. | Crane relies on Shine that promises of future action cannot support fraud. | Court did not resolve due to ripeness; merits not reached. |
| Is the breach of contract claim barred by the statute of frauds or saved by part performance? | Jean partly performed; statute of frauds is inapplicable or satisfied by part performance. | Contract is unwritten regarding real property interests and barred by statute of frauds. | Court did not resolve due to ripeness; merits not reached. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shine v. Dodge, 130 Me. 440, 157 A. 318 (1931) (promise to take a future action will not support an action for fraud)
- Lamson v. Cote, 2001 ME 109, 775 A.2d 1134 (ripeness requires a concrete determination of ownership before resolving related claims)
- Morrill v. Morrill, 1998 ME 133, 712 A.2d 1039 (elements of tortious interference with an expectancy)
- Deering Ice Cream Corp. v. Colombo, Inc., 598 A.2d 454 (Me. 1991) (breach of contract damages should reflect the expectation interest)
- Wagner v. Sec’y of State, 663 A.2d 564 (Me. 1995) (courts should avoid deciding matters that are not fit for judicial consideration)