I. Factual History
The trial court found or the record otherwise supports the following facts. The plaintiff's wife died in March 2012 and the parties' dispute arose after the disposition of her estate. The decedent's will named the defendant as the executor of the estate, which was comprised, in pertinent part, of two properties in Hollis - the plaintiff's marital home and the decedent's 50% ownership interest in 94.3 acres of undeveloped land on Rocky Point Road (Rocky Point). 2 In her will, the decedent devised one-third of the estate to the plaintiff and devised the remaining two-thirds of the estate to the defendant.
The probate court appointed the defendant as the executor of the estate in May 2012 and, pursuant to his duties as the executor, he contracted for appraisals of both properties. The defendant's appraiser valued the decedent's 50% interest in Rocky Point at $ 550,000 and the marital home at $ 273,000. Based upon these valuations, the defendant suggested to the plaintiff that they settle the estate by the plaintiff taking title to the marital home, in his name alone, in exchange for the defendant assuming the estate's entire interest in Rocky Point. The plaintiff accepted this offer in light of his apparent impression that his one-third interest in the estate's ownership of Rocky Point closely approximated the defendant's two-thirds interest in the marital home. 3 This exchange of property interests was accomplished by way of an exchange of fiduciary deeds in September 2012.
At some point in 2015, the plaintiff learned that the Town of Hollis had either offered to purchase or agreed to purchase Rocky Point for $ 2,500,000, but, for reasons not established by the record, the sale was never consummated. Thereafter, the plaintiff discovered that his son had commissioned an appraisal of Rocky Point in 2005 which estimated that the value of the property, at that time, was $ 1,950,000. These valuations suggested that following the parties' exchange of property interests, the defendant's interest in Rocky Point would have been worth approximately $ 975,000.
Armed with these discoveries, the plaintiff sued the defendant in the superior court in September 2016 alleging claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligence, and unjust enrichment. The defendant
In January 2017, the defendant filed another motion seeking to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint, or in the alternative, to transfer the matter to the probate court. In his pleading, the defendant argued that "[a]ll of [the] [p]laintiff's claims are related to the [e]state, and the administration of the [e]state, and the values of estate assets, and the disbursement of the estate assets" and, therefore, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over the parties' dispute pursuant to RSA 547:3 (Supp. 2018). In March 2017, the trial court denied the defendant's motion, citing its previous ruling that the defendant had mischaracterized the nature of the plaintiff's claims.
Undeterred, the defendant moved to consolidate the plaintiff's action with a petition he filed in the probate court against the plaintiff seeking to enforce his mother's will. In his motion, he again argued that the probate court maintained jurisdiction over the parties' disputes. 4 The plaintiff objected, arguing that: (1) the court had already determined this issue; and (2) the superior court was the proper forum to determine the plaintiff's tort claims and the probate court was the proper forum to decide the defendant's enforcement action. In December 2017, the trial court denied that motion.
The defendant moved to reconsider, arguing that the court had not yet decided the issue of jurisdiction under RSA 547:3. On this occasion, the
III. Appellate Arguments
On appeal, the plaintiff maintains that the superior court erred, as a matter of
The defendant counters that his father cannot meet his burden of demonstrating reversible error by the superior court because: (1) RSA 547:3 confers exclusive jurisdiction to the probate court over the plaintiff's action given that all of the plaintiff's claims concern the administration, settlement and distribution of estate assets; (2) whatever rights the plaintiff has to the estate's Rocky Point interests arise from his capacity as a beneficiary of the decedent's will; and (3) granting the plaintiff's requested relief would lead to absurd results by which any beneficiary could challenge the administration of an estate years after the final settlement, contrary to New Hampshire law.
IV. Analysis
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Probate Court and Superior Court
The parties' competing jurisdictional claims require that we analyze the subject matter jurisdiction of both the superior and probate courts to determine whether the dispute before us falls exclusively within the probate court's jurisdiction. A court lacks the authority to hear or determine a case concerning subject matters over which it has no jurisdiction.
Daine v. Daine
,
Determining the jurisdiction of the probate court is a matter of statutory interpretation which presents a question of law subject to our
de
novo
review.
In re Athena D.
,
Pursuant to RSA 547:3, I, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction, in relevant part, over:
(b) The granting of administration and all matters and things of probate jurisdiction relating to the composition, administration, sale, settlement, and final distribution of estates of deceased persons,including ... claims against the executor or administrator for those services related to the prior care and maintenance of the decedent ... [as well as]
(c) The interpretation and construction of wills ....
RSA 547:3, I(b)-(c). We have consistently construed this language as plainly and unambiguously limiting the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court.
See,
e.g.
,
In re Estate of O'Dwyer
,
" 'The general policy of the law in this State has been to confine the contentious jurisdiction of the probate courts within narrow limits.' "
Cigna
,
When the legislature has intended to expand the scope of the probate court's jurisdiction, it has done so in explicit terms. For example, in the absence of an explicit legislative grant of probate court jurisdiction to determine title to real estate, we held that the superior court was the proper forum for such a dispute, and the probate court lacked such jurisdiction.
See
O'Dwyer
,
Our reading of the powers granted to the probate courts under the current statutory scheme is supported by our canons of statutory interpretation. Nothing within RSA 547:3 or RSA 547:3-b (Supp. 2018), by which the legislature granted equity jurisdiction to the probate court, reflects a legislative intent to grant to the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over tort claims simply because the claims are related to or occurred during the administration of an estate. "We interpret legislative intent from the statute as written and will not consider what the legislature might have said or add words that the legislature did not include."
In re Muller
,
Accordingly, we now consider the nature of the plaintiff's claims to determine whether they fall within the narrow limits of the probate court's exclusive jurisdiction. In
DiGaetano
, we examined the scope of the probate court's jurisdiction with respect to a dispute over a family trust by assessing the nature of the dispute or claims to determine whether they fell within the probate court's jurisdiction.
While the DiGaetano test and the language of RSA 547:3, I(b) both focus on a matter's relationship to a court's jurisdiction, neither the test nor
In DiGaetano , we examined a separate statute, RSA 547:3, I(c) (Supp. 2011), and determined that the nature of the plaintiffs'
Here, the plaintiff's claims do not require the interpretation of a will or trust, nor do they require an assessment of the estate's administration or seek a re-distribution of the estate's assets. Although the plaintiff's action may pertain, in some measure, to the parties' settlement of their interests in the estate, the dispute does not relate to the manner by which the estate was settled. Rather, the estate has been settled and the assets have been disbursed with the defendant receiving title to the estate's entire interest in Rocky Point and the plaintiff receiving the entire interest in the marital home. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, not a re-opening of the estate's administration or a redistribution of estate property. Resolution of the parties' dispute does not depend upon an analysis of "the composition, administration, sale, ... and final distribution of [the decedent's] estate[ ]" or "the interpretation and construction of wills." RSA 547:3, I(b)-(c). The plaintiff's claims challenge the defendant's conduct and representations made during the negotiation of the settlement. Thus, the litigation of this dispute requires fact-finding regarding the parties' intent, their representations to one another, and their knowledge of the value of Rocky Point garnered before, during, and after the probate of the estate.
The plaintiff's claims are common law tort and equitable claims against the defendant in his personal capacity based upon the defendant's allegedly fraudulent conduct. While the plaintiff may have been a beneficiary of the will, his claims are personal in nature and arise from alleged conduct that
B. Defendant's Claim of "Absurd Results"
The defendant nonetheless argues that an interpretation of the statute in the manner indicated above will lead to absurd results which enable "a beneficiary to sue an executor in Superior Court several
First, the superior court here will have no occasion to review or assess the probate court's prior rulings and findings. Rather, upon remand, the trial court will be required to assess the conduct of the executor and determine the parties' knowledge and intent before, during, and after the probate court proceedings. Second, our interpretation of RSA 547:3, I(b) and our ruling on the nature of the plaintiff's claims will not permit the re-opening of stale probate claims years after the administration of an estate. Instead, our decision identifies the proper forum in which an aggrieved beneficiary may pursue his claims after discovering allegedly unlawful conduct by an executor. We conclude that depriving an aggrieved beneficiary of a forum in which to pursue claims which accrued outside the strict time limits applicable to probate actions and to seek damages when an executor has wrongfully liquidated, sold, or misappropriated estate assets would itself be an absurdity that the law cannot condone.
Applying the defendant's expansive interpretation of the term "relates" in RSA 547:3, I(b) would require a beneficiary of a will who has incurred
Reversed and remanded .
LYNN, C.J., and HICKS, BASSETT, and HANTZ MARCONI, JJ., concurred.
Notes
Although the legislature established the circuit court in 2011 by merging the former probate and district courts with the former judicial branch family division, this opinion will refer to the circuit court, probate division as the "probate court" to avoid any confusion with our prior decisions concerning probate jurisdiction.
The remaining ownership interests in Rocky Point are believed to be held by another trust created by another relative of the decedent.
The defendant's 2012 appraisals suggested that the plaintiff's one-third executory devise to Rocky Point would have been valued at approximately $ 183,000 and the defendant's two-third executory devise to the marital home would have been valued at approximately $ 182,000.
The record suggests that, in response to the plaintiff's superior court complaint, the defendant filed a motion in the probate court seeking to reopen the original estate and to enforce a no-contest clause set forth in his mother's will. The defendant withdrew his probate action once the superior court dismissed the plaintiff's claims in the matter now before us. The probate court then closed the case.