Robert L. Connary v. Richard A. Shea, 259 A.3d 118

In 2003 Patricia and William Shea created a revocable living trust that disposed "all" Siwooganock Bank (Bank) stock to Patricia's nieces and nephews and other trust assets to William's children.
In 2006 William died and the Bank recalled and redeemed its stock; the Trust received cash (~$460,000) which was later commingled and reinvested over the next 12 years.
Patricia died in 2018; successor trustee Richard Shea liquidated General Electric stock and distributed its proceeds to the nieces/nephews but declined to distribute any proceeds tied to the 2006 Bank redemption, asserting the Bank stock had adeemed.
Connary (one of Patricia's nephews) sued seeking (A) a declaratory judgment that the Trust provided for a general devise entitling beneficiaries to the redemption proceeds or, alternatively, (B) reformation of the Trust to reflect settlor intent to give the proceeds to the beneficiaries.
The Superior Court granted partial summary judgment for Shea, holding the Trust made a specific devise of the Bank stock that adeemed in 2006, and dismissed the reformation claim; on appeal the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed as to the dispositive construction and ademption rulings but vacated and remanded the reformation claim for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Was the Trust devise of the Bank stock specific or general?	Connary: language ambiguous or a general devise entitling beneficiaries to proceeds.	Shea: Trust disposes of "all" Bank stock—a specific devise.	Court: "all" Bank stock is a clear, specific devise.
2. If specific, did the devise adeem when Bank redeemed stock in 2006?	Connary: proceeds were retained in Trust and traceable; no ademption.	Shea: specific gift failed because the specific stock was not in the Trust at settlor's death.	Court: Under governing law the stock adeemed in 2006; no shares remained at death.
3. Which ademption rule applies (older identity theory v. newer intent-based rule)?	Connary: new non-ademption provisions (Title 18-C) should apply.	Shea: older statute (Title 18-A) governs because Patricia died before Title 18-C effective date.	Court: Title 18-A governs; Title 18-C non-ademption rules do not apply retroactively here.
4. Was summary judgment proper on Connary's alternative reformation claim?	Connary: reformation claim was pleaded; court should not have decided it on summary judgment without record evidence.	Shea: treated reformation as not before the court and invited dismissal or later challenge.	Court: vacated and remanded the reformation claim—summary judgment was improper because parties had not presented evidence on reformation.

Kurtz & Perry, P.A. v. Emerson, 8 A.3d 677 (Me. 2010) (standard for reviewing summary judgment and viewing facts favorably to nonmoving party)
Fiduciary Tr. Co. v. Wheeler, 132 A.3d 1178 (Me. 2016) (interpret trust within four corners but consider instrument context)
Gorham v. Chadwick, 200 A. 500 (Me. 1938) (definition and effect of a specific devise)
Maxim v. Maxim, 152 A. 268 (Me. 1930) (specific devise liability to ademption)
Perry v. Leslie, 126 A. 340 (Me. 1924) (distinguishing general from specific legacies)
Scribner v. Berry, 489 A.2d 8 (Me. 1985) (probate-code rules of construction apply only when testator could have amended will after code change)