In re Estate of Vess
| Decision Date | 28 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 372, 524 Sept. Term, 2016.,s. 372, 524 Sept. Term, 2016. |
| Citation | 170 A.3d 845,234 Md.App. 173 |
| Parties | In the ESTATE OF Howard Lewis VESS In re: Estate of Howard Lewis Vess |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by: Ralph Powers, Jr. of Upper Marlboro, MD, for Appellant.
Argued by: Alicia M. Balanesi & Vharles Bagley, IV (Matthew S. Ballard, Bagley & Rhody, PC on the brief) all of Annapolis, MD, for Appellee.
Panel: Meredith, Arthur, Leahy, JJ.
Nearly six years ago, Claudia Vess commenced caveat proceedings in the Orphans' Court for Prince George's County. After several years of litigation, the orphans' court transmitted five issues to the circuit court for a jury trial.
Ms. Vess took a de novo appeal to the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. The circuit court ruled against her. Ms. Vess appealed from that judgment in In the Matter of Estate of Howard Lewis Vess , No. 372, Sept. Term 2016. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we reject her challenge to the circuit court judgment and the underlying order to transmit issues.
After the circuit court entered judgment in the de novo appeal, the orphans' court entered an order "re-submitt[ing]" the issues for trial. In Claudia Vess v. Robert Price, Jr. , No. 524, Sept. Term 2016, Ms. Vess appealed directly to this Court from that orphans' court order. We also reject her challenge to that order.
The combined result of both determinations is that this case can finally proceed to a trial in the circuit court on the issues as framed by the orphans' court.
Howard Vess died on June 10, 2011, at the age of 89. He was a widower and had no children.
Mr. Vess's wife, Katherine, predeceased him in February 2006. Before her death, she had been the principal beneficiary of his two, prior wills.
About six months after his wife's death, Mr. Vess engaged an attorney to prepare a new will. That document is titled "Last Will and Testament of Howard L. Vess" and dated August 11, 2006.
Mr. Vess's 2006 will revoked all of his prior wills and codicils. He made one specific legacy in the amount of $10 to his brother, provided that he survived Mr. Vess. The only other gift provision was a residuary clause, in which Mr. Vess devised the remainder of the estate to his "good friend, ROBERT V. PRICE, JR., or his issue." The 2006 will named Mr. Price as personal representative, and named Mr. Price's wife as a substitute personal representative.1
Mr. Vess's brother died in 2009. He had three surviving children: Claudia, Brian, and Debra.
A few weeks after Mr. Vess's death in 2011, Mr. Price filed a probate petition with the Register of Wills for Prince George's County. He requested administrative probate of the will dated August 11, 2006. He listed Claudia Vess as an interested person and identified her as Mr. Vess's surviving niece and a potential heir.
The Register of Wills granted Mr. Price's request that he be appointed as personal representative of the estate. In addition, the Register docketed the two prior wills and two prior codicils, each of which had been filed with the Register for safekeeping.2
On December 28, 2011, Howard Vess's niece, Claudia Vess, filed a petition to caveat in the Orphans' Court for Prince George's County. She requested that the 2006 will be declared invalid and that "any previous will be declared valid." She asserted that her interest in the estate was "based on any previous will executed by [Mr. Vess] or by intestacy."
In the caveat petition, Ms. Vess asserted that the document dated August 11, 2006, was not Mr. Vess's last will and testament.
Her petition alleged: that Mr. Vess lacked testamentary capacity and was not of sound and disposing mind at the time of execution; that the instrument was not executed and witnessed properly; that the signature on the document was not Mr. Vess's signature; that the instrument was procured by fraud; and that the instrument was procured by the exercise of undue influence of Mr. Price, who allegedly maintained a confidential relationship with Mr. Vess. Although Ms. Vess did not include the allegation in her petition, her other submissions assert that Mr. Price established a confidential relationship with Mr. Vess by serving as his financial advisor.
The caveat petition included a request that Mr. Price "be required to answer" the petition. Maryland Rule 6–432(a) states that, within five days after the filing of a petition to caveat, the register of wills must "issue an Order to Answer requiring the personal representative ... to respond to the petition to caveat within 20 days after service[.]" Rule 6–432(b) requires the register of wills to serve that order and the caveat petition on the personal representative. In this case, the register did not issue such an order within that time period.
Nevertheless, on the twentieth day after Ms. Vess had filed her petition, Mr. Price responded by filing a motion to dismiss the petition based on lack of standing. Mr. Price contended that Ms. Vess would have no direct interest in the estate even if she succeeded in invalidating the 2006 will. He informed the court that Ms. Vess was not a legatee under the several prior wills and codicils and that she would be entitled to receive estate property through intestate succession only if she successfully invalidated each of those instruments, which she had not attempted to do. He argued that, absent some basis for invalidating the prior wills, Ms. Vess's interest in the estate was too remote to allow her to pursue the caveat.
In her response to the motion, Ms. Vess stated that she was "only seeking to ensure her uncle's wishes are honored fully, whether or not she receives any gain for herself arising out of ... her possible heir status." She argued that her interest "based by intestacy should provide sufficient standing" to caveat the will.
In April 2012, several months after the filing of the petition, the Register of Wills issued notice of the caveat petition to Mr. Price, as an interested person. The notice stated that, if Mr. Price wished to respond to the caveat petition, he was required to do so "within 20 days after service of this notice [.]" The Register also issued an Order to Answer to Mr. Price, instructing him, as the personal representative, to "respond to the petition to caveat no later than 20 days after service." Mr. Price did not file an additional response to the caveat petition at that time, because he had already responded through his motion to dismiss.
After a hearing, the orphans' court dismissed the caveat petition, concluding that Ms. Vess lacked standing to challenge the 2006 will. The court reasoned that, if Ms. Vess prevailed in the caveat proceedings, the prior wills would be offered for probate, but that she would receive nothing under either of those wills. The court noted that Ms. Vess had raised no question as to the validity of the prior wills.
Ms. Vess took a de novo appeal to the circuit court. The circuit court reversed the dismissal of the caveat petition and remanded the case to the orphans' court. In its opinion, the circuit court reasoned that, even though Ms. Vess had only a "slight chance to inherit" by invalidating each of the successive wills, her status as an heir-at-law was itself a sufficient interest for her to pursue the caveat proceeding. Although Mr. Price could have appealed from the circuit court's judgment to this Court, he did not do so.3
After the case returned to the orphans' court, the court held a hearing in October 2013 on the status of the caveat proceedings. In open court, Ms. Vess and Mr. Price submitted a joint petition asking the orphans' court to transmit five issues to the circuit court for a jury trial: (a) whether Howard Vess was competent to make the 2006 will; (b) whether the will was procured by the exercise of undue influence; (c) whether the testator's signature on the will was genuine; (d) whether the will was attested and signed by two credible witnesses in his presence; and (e) whether the will was procured by fraud. The orphans' court filed a hearing sheet, which stated that the joint petition had been "granted" and that the judge intended "to prepare [an] order" to transmit issues.
Two months later, however, before the court finalized the written order to transmit issues, Ms. Vess filed a line in the orphans' court withdrawing her support for the joint petition. For the first time, she complained that Mr. Price had never filed a formal "answer" denying the allegations of her petition. She contended that "[t]ransmission of the issues first requires an answer to the Petition to Caveat which establishes the existence of a factual controversy."
Immediately upon learning of Ms. Vess's attempt to withdraw her support for the joint petition (and, in fact, two days before she filed the line with the orphans' court), Mr. Price filed a formal answer to the caveat petition. In addition to denying specific allegations, he represented: that the 2006 will was executed properly by Mr. Vess and attested by two witnesses, that Mr. Vess had the requisite testamentary capacity at the time the will was executed, and that the will had not been procured by fraud or undue influence. Mr. Price signed a statement verifying the contents of his answer under penalty of perjury.
Soon after Mr. Price filed his answer, Ms. Vess moved to strike it on the ground that it was untimely. She contended that Mr. Price was required by Rule 6–122(b) to file "[a]ny response" to the caveat petition "within 20 days after service" of the petition. She argued that entry of an order of default would be "appropriate" upon the striking of Mr. Price's answer.
Recognizing that the Maryland Rules do not authorize an orphans' court to render judgment by default, Ms. Vess asked the orphans' court to apply the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castruccio v. Estate of Castruccio
...on September 28, 2008, which he filed with the Register of Wills for Anne Arundel County for safekeeping"); In reEstate of Vess , 234 Md. App. 173, 181, 170 A.3d 845 (2017) ("the Register docketed the two prior wills and two prior codicils, each of which had been filed with the Register for......
-
Bd. of Educ. of Harford Cnty. v. Sanders
...to this court when a party files a revisory motion under Rule 2-535 within 10 days after entry of judgment." Estate of Vess , 234 Md. App. 173, 194, 170 A.3d 845 (2017). Here, the trial court's Memorandum Opinion was docketed on February 3, 2020. Sanders filed a motion to revise under Maryl......
-
Castruccio v. Estate of Castruccio
...testament on September 28, 2008, which he filed with the Register of Wills for Anne Arundel County for safekeeping"); In re Estate of Vess, 234 Md. App. 173, 181 (2017) ("the Register docketed the two prior wills and two prior codicils, each of which had been filed with the Register for saf......
-
In re Estate of Castruccio
...Md. 522, 564-65 (2019) (detailing cases holding that untimely filing of a notice of appeal precluded appellate review); Estate of Vess, 234 Md. App. 173, 195 (2017) (citing Rule 7-502(a) for the proposition that review of a judgment from the orphans' court to the circuit court may be obtain......