Rogers v. Rogers

171 N.H. 738

203 A.3d 85

Samuel ROGERS

v.Joseph ROGERS

No. 2018-0136

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Argued: November 28, 2018

Opinion Issued: February 1, 2019

Greenblott & O'Rourke, PLLC, of Contoocook (Seth W. Greenblott on the brief and orally), for the plaintiff.

Bielagus Law Offices PLLC, of Milford (Jason A. Bielagus on the brief and orally), for the defendant.

DONOVAN, J.

The plaintiff, Samuel Rogers, appeals an order of the Superior Court (Nadeau, C.J.) dismissing his complaint against his son, Joseph Rogers, upon finding that the circuit court, probate division (probate court),¹ and not the superior court, maintains exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over his cause of action. We reverse and remand.

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.

II. Procedural History

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 moved to dismiss the suit in October 2016 arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the time limitations set forth in RSA 556:3 (2007), because all claims against the estate needed to be filed within six months of the probate court's issuance of the certificate of appointment in May 2012, and barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, because he could have, but did not, raise these claims in the original probate matter. The Trial Court (Ignatius, J.) denied the motion upon finding that: (1) the defendant mischaracterized the nature of the plaintiff's claims as against the estate rather than the defendant, personally; and (2) the res judicata doctrine did not apply because the plaintiff could not have previously litigated his claims in the initial probate matter since he did not become aware of the defendant's actionable conduct until 2015, three years after the probating of the estate.

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 Trial Court (Nadeau, C.J.) granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiff's superior court claims. The trial court found that the plaintiff's action "clearly relates to an estate and will" because he alleges that the defendant purposely misrepresented the value of Rocky Point "during the administration of [the decedent's] estate." (Emphasis in original.) The trial court further found that the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute because the parties reached their agreement during the administration of the estate and the plaintiff is suing the defendant in his capacity as the administrator of the estate. The plaintiff moved to reconsider, but the trial court denied that motion without comment. This appeal followed.

III. Appellate Arguments

On appeal, the plaintiff maintains that the superior court erred, as a matter of law, in finding that the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over his claims, because he is not seeking a re-administration of the estate or challenging the allocation of the property distribution. Instead, he argues that his complaint asserts tort claims for which he seeks damages based upon his son's violations of his common law obligations. The plaintiff further argues that, given the absence of a change in circumstances and the substantial litigation that has occurred in this case, the superior court erred in reversing its own ruling.

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, 157 N.H. 426, 428, 951 A.2d 133 (2008). The probate court is not a court of general jurisdiction; rather, "[i]ts powers are limited to those conferred upon it by statute." Petition of Cigna Healthcare, 146 N.H. 683, 688, 777 A.2d 884 (2001) (quotations omitted). By contrast, the superior court is a court of general jurisdiction and has authority to entertain actions in equity, when there is no adequate remedy at law, State v. Simone, 151 N.H. 328, 331, 856 A.2d 17 (2004), as well as "civil actions and pleas, real, personal, and mixed, according to the course of the common law." RSA 491:7 (Supp. 2018).

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., 162 N.H. 232, 234-35, 27 A.3d 744 (2011). In matters of statutory interpretation, we are the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed by the words of the statute considered as a whole. Cigna, 146 N.H. at 688, 777 A.2d 884. We first look to the statutory language, and whenever possible construe that language according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Id. We interpret legislative intent from the statute as written and will not consider what the legislature might have said or add language that the legislature did not see fit to include. In the Matter of McAndrews & Woodson, 171 N.H. 214, 219–20, 193 A.3d 834 (2018). When the language of a statute is unambiguous, we do not look beyond it for further indications of legislative intent. Id.

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

...