Administrator’s sale set aside because of unspoken limitation that property be “ kept in the family”.

In re Estate of Doran (2007-483) (26-Feb-2010) 2010 VT 13 (Burgess, J.) (Reiber, C.J. and Dooley, J., dissenting.)
This case involves a dispute among family members regarding the disposition of the estate of Raymond Doran, who died intestate in February 2004. There are twenty-one interested heirs, including Raymond’s three surviving siblings and the children of four siblings who predeceased Raymond. At issue are 187 acres of real property near the town of Castleton.

The estate’s co-administrators obtained a license to sell the property, and they held a private auction limited to family members. Appellant James Doran, one of Raymond’s nephews, was the highest bidder.

The probate court confirmed the bids, and Raymond’s sister, Catherine Pellegrino, appealed this order to the superior court. Shortly thereafter, James assigned his interest in the property to a limited liability corporation, whose members included himself, his attorney in this case, Harry Ryan, and other nonfamily members.

The superior court struck the probate orders, finding that James had acted in bad faith, and it remanded the case to the probate court. James appeals from this decision, and we affirm because there was evidence the intestate wanted the property "kept in the family."

Reiber, C.J. and Dooley, J., dissenting on grounds that the superior court erred in concluding that written formalities could be dispensed with in the name of equity. Underlying legal principle prevents trial courts from placng restrictions on the alienation of property by after-the-fact guesswork, as opposed to advanced planning by formal written instruments, such as wills, covenants, and limited licenses to sell. The other heirs could have sought a limitation on the license to sell that prevented resale, or defined the conditions under which it would be allowed. In the absence of such a limitation, there is no ground to interfere with a bona fide sale under the unrestricted terms of the license. The majority’s conclusion to the contrary reduces probate administration to a swearing contest.