In re Marjorie T. Palmer Trust, 2018 VT 134 [filed
The trustees argue that the probate division's October 2014 decision on that issue was an interlocutory rather than a final order, and did not prevent them from raising the issue again in the civil division. We disagree.
An interested party may take an appeal from the probate division to the civil division "if the order appealed from is final as to the subject matter before the court." In re Estate of Seward, 139 Vt. 623, 624, 433 A.2d 274, 274 (1981); 12 V.S.A. § 2555.
An order is final if "the decree or judgment disposed of all matters that should or could properly be settled at the time and in the proceeding then before the court." In re Webster's Estate, 117 Vt. 550, 552, 96 A.2d 816, 817 (1953).
If a final order of the probate division is not timely appealed, the civil division lacks jurisdiction to review it.
Vermont has no statute or rule defining what specific types of probate orders are final and appealable.
A review of our decisions in this area reveals that we have frequently treated probate orders as final even where they did not dispose of the entire probate proceeding. See In re Tr. Estate of Flynn, 158 Vt. 268, 270-71, 609 A.2d 984, 986 (1992) (taking jurisdiction of appeal from probate court orders granting motions to intervene and replace trustee of estate); In re Cary's Estate, 81 Vt. 112, 121, 69 A. 736, 739 (1908) (holding that probate court order denying remaindermen's petition to compel accounting by trustee of life estate "was final as to the petitioners, and one from which they could appeal"); In re Bellows' Estate, 60 Vt. 224, 227, 14 A. 697, 699 (1888) (holding superior court erred in dismissing appeal from probate court order removing executor); State v. McKown, 21 Vt. 503, 507 (1849) (holding that guardian had right to immediately appeal probate court order removing him as guardian and appointing another).These decisions implicitly recognize that probate proceedings involve a series of decisions on discrete issues that may be appropriate for immediate review.
Courts in other jurisdictions have recognized that probate court decisions regarding whether particular individuals are heirs are final appealable orders.
It makes sense to treat an order of this type as final and appealable because the identity of heirs and beneficiaries is fundamental to a probate proceeding and resolving disputes regarding who is entitled to distribution from an estate early in the proceeding is in everyone's best interests.
For these reasons, we agree with the civil division that the October 2014 decision of the probate division was a final appealable order because it conclusively determined a discrete issue then before the court: The order left nothing to be decided with regard to the issue of whether David C. Palmer was entitled to distribution under the trust. Accordingly, the trustees' failure to appeal that order within thirty days deprived the civil division of jurisdiction to review it.
If a final order of the probate division is not timely appealed, the civil division lacks jurisdiction to review it.
Vermont has no statute or rule defining what specific types of probate orders are final and appealable.
A review of our decisions in this area reveals that we have frequently treated probate orders as final even where they did not dispose of the entire probate proceeding. See In re Tr. Estate of Flynn, 158 Vt. 268, 270-71, 609 A.2d 984, 986 (1992) (taking jurisdiction of appeal from probate court orders granting motions to intervene and replace trustee of estate); In re Cary's Estate, 81 Vt. 112, 121, 69 A. 736, 739 (1908) (holding that probate court order denying remaindermen's petition to compel accounting by trustee of life estate "was final as to the petitioners, and one from which they could appeal"); In re Bellows' Estate, 60 Vt. 224, 227, 14 A. 697, 699 (1888) (holding superior court erred in dismissing appeal from probate court order removing executor); State v. McKown, 21 Vt. 503, 507 (1849) (holding that guardian had right to immediately appeal probate court order removing him as guardian and appointing another).These decisions implicitly recognize that probate proceedings involve a series of decisions on discrete issues that may be appropriate for immediate review.
Courts in other jurisdictions have recognized that probate court decisions regarding whether particular individuals are heirs are final appealable orders.
It makes sense to treat an order of this type as final and appealable because the identity of heirs and beneficiaries is fundamental to a probate proceeding and resolving disputes regarding who is entitled to distribution from an estate early in the proceeding is in everyone's best interests.
For these reasons, we agree with the civil division that the October 2014 decision of the probate division was a final appealable order because it conclusively determined a discrete issue then before the court: The order left nothing to be decided with regard to the issue of whether David C. Palmer was entitled to distribution under the trust. Accordingly, the trustees' failure to appeal that order within thirty days deprived the civil division of jurisdiction to review it.
No comments:
Post a Comment