Estate of Tingley
| Decision Date | 14 July 1992 |
| Citation | 610 A.2d 266 |
| Parties | ESTATE OF Honora P. TINGLEY. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Charles O. Tingley, Jr., pro se.
William B. Devoe, Thad B. Zmistowski, Eaton, Peabody, Bradford & Vigue, P.A., Bangor, for defendant.
Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD and COLLINS, JJ.
Charles O. Tingley, Jr. appeals from an order of the Penobscot County Probate Court (Woodcock, J.) denying his post-judgment motion to set aside or otherwise reverse all previous orders entered by the court in the matter of the estate of his mother, Honora P. Tingley. Charles, the personal representative of his mother's estate, contends that because of a conflict of interest, Judge Woodcock was not impartial and that he should have recused himself from the matter. The record does not indicate that recusal was required. Even if recusal of Judge Woodcock had been appropriate, Tingley does not show that the outcome would have been different had the judge removed himself. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying the post-judgment motion.
Honora P. Tingley, mother of the appellant, died on July 31, 1988. In March 1989, Eastern Maine Medical Center (EMMC), a creditor of the estate, filed a petition for a formal adjudication of intestacy and appointment of a personal representative. In June 1989, Charles Tingley was appointed personal representative of his mother's estate.
In July 1989, EMMC filed a claim against the estate for $14,560.81, representing the balance due on charges for hospital services rendered to Honora Tingley from November 1987 to March 1988. In January 1990, EMMC petitioned the Probate Court for allowance of its claim. Formal probate proceedings were begun and hearings were held on EMMC's petition for claim allowance. In June 1990, the Probate Court issued a judgment allowing EMMC's claim in full and ordered that the claim be paid from the assets of the estate. Tingley was ordered to prepare and file an inventory of property within thirty days. No appeal was taken from this judgment.
In September 1990, with the claim unpaid and no inventory filed, EMMC petitioned the court for an order of surcharge against Tingley in his individual capacity. After a hearing on the petition for surcharge, the court ordered that the personal representative pay within sixty days the full amount of EMMC's claim from the assets of the estate. The court further ordered that in the event that the personal representative should fail to make the required payment, Tingley was to be personally surcharged for the amount of the claim, plus interest.
Tingley did not request any findings of fact or conclusions of law, nor did he appeal from the Probate Court's order on the petition for surcharge. Though an inventory of property eventually was filed with the court, payment was not forthcoming. In July 1991, over seven months after the court's order on the petition for surcharge, EMMC sought to execute on its judgment.
In October 1991, Tingley, by letter to the court, for the first time raised the issue of conflict on the part of Judge Woodcock, requesting that the judge:
vacate, set aside, or otherwise reverse any and all previous orders pertaining to the above matters, because of your conflict of interest in the above matter because a relative of yours sits on the EMH (Eastern Medical Healthcare) and EMMC (Eastern Maine Medical Center) Boards. 1
The record shows that John A. Woodcock, Jr., a nephew of Judge Woodcock, sits on the Board of Directors and is an officer of EMH (EMMC's parent organization) and is an officer and trustee of EMMC. Tingley asserts that he first became aware of this fact by reading a September 1991 news article stating Judge Woodcock had removed himself from a contested case involving EMMC because he had a relative on the EMH and EMMC boards. Counsel for EMMC in this case, by letters to the Probate Court, stated that he had a specific recollection that Judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Marden, 7549
...her from sitting. See 48A C.J.S. Judges § 114 (1981). Recusal is a matter within the broad discretion of the trial court. Estate of Tingley, 610 A.2d 266, 267 (Me.1992). There is nothing in this record to indicate that the judge did not render her decisions and orders impartially. See Estat......
-
Ellsworth Commons, LP, Plaintiff v. City of Ellsworth, Maine, Defendant
... ... Finally, a ... review of the record does not establish that Patton acted in ... a way that revealed bias or prejudice. Cf Estate of Tingley, ... 610 A.2d 266, 267-68 (Me. 1992) (discussion of claim of ... judicial bias). Although Ellsworth Commons points to ... ...
-
Estate of Dineen
...& Disability compromised his impartiality. Recusal is a matter within the broad discretion of the trial court. Estate of Tingley, 610 A.2d 266, 267 (Me.1992); Wood v. Wood, 602 A.2d 672, 674 (Me.1992). Accordingly, we review the denial of a motion to recuse for an abuse of discretion. Estat......