In re Estate of Parikh
| Decision Date | 23 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 501,No. 1480,No. 2312,No. 1655,No. 302,1480,1655,501,2312,302 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF DINESH O. PARIKH |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Orphans' Court for Montgomery County
UNREPORTED
Kehoe, Gould, Kenney, James A., III (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Gould, J.
*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.
In these consolidated appeals, appellants, Oxana Parikh and Namish Parikh,1 challenge several orders of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, sitting as the orphans' court, in the Estate of Dinesh O. Parikh. Tina Parikh and Lynn C. Boynton, Esquire, the Special Administrator of the estate ("SA Boynton"), are the appellees.
This is the second time that we have considered disputes regarding the disposition of Dr. Parikh's estate. Appellants' previous consolidated appeals before this Court were decided in In re Estate of Parikh, No. 1226, September Term, 2017, (filed Jan. 16, 2019), cert. denied sub nom. Matter of Estate of Parikh, 464 Md. 597 (2019) ("Parikh I"). In these five consolidated appeals, appellants present 38 questions, many of which were resolved by our opinion in Parikh I.
As to the remaining issues properly before us, we affirm the orphans' court's decisions.
Dr. Dinesh O. Parikh ("Dr. Parikh") died on June 18, 2016. His will, dated July 30, 2014, left his entire estate to Oxana, the ex-wife of his son, Namish, and designated her as the personal representative of the estate. The will made no provision for Namish, hisdaughter, Tina, or his wife, Neela. On the same day the will was signed, Dr. Parikh signed a durable power of attorney, naming Oxana as his attorney-in-fact.
Approximately four months prior to Dr. Parikh's death, his doctor at the Washington Hospital Center, where he was being treated for terminal cancer, deemed Dr. Parikh "incapacitated," and advised Oxana, a registered nurse at Washington Hospital Center, that Dr. Parikh had between three months and five years to live. Shortly thereafter, Oxana, using Dr. Parikh's power of attorney, began to liquidate his assets, allegedly to pay for his medical expenses. Oxana "gifted" approximately $1.14 million of Dr. Parikh's assets to Namish. Three months before Dr. Parikh's death, while he was incapacitated, Oxana filed for an uncontested divorce from Neela on Dr. Parikh's behalf.3
After Dr. Parikh's death, Oxana filed a petition for small estate administration with the Register of Wills for Montgomery County.4 On July 11, 2016, Tina filed a petition to caveat the will, claiming that "a fraud has been and continues to be committed on her father's estate." Tina also petitioned the orphans' court to remove Oxana as personal representative, appoint a successor representative, order an accounting, and impose a constructive trust for all estate assets.
Oxana opposed both petitions and, after a hearing, the orphans' court appointed SA Boynton as special administrator of Dr. Parikh's estate. The court also denied Oxana's petition to transmit issues regarding her alleged mismanagement of assets and the validity of Dr. Parikh's marriage for a jury trial in the circuit court. SA Boynton subsequently filed a complaint in the circuit court against Oxana and Namish seeking recovery of the funds improperly liquidated and transferred to Namish in the months prior to Dr. Parikh's death. The disputed funds were ultimately deposited into the court's registry pursuant to a consent order. Oxana filed an accounting "for the period of January 1, 2016 through September 9, 2016," listing the total assets of the estate at $1,225,553.90, which included the $1.14 million given to Namish.
Oxana, Namish, Tina, Neela, and SA Boynton agreed to mediate their disputes before Senior Judge Irma S. Raker. At the conclusion of the mediation, the attorneys for Oxana and Namish, Neela, Tina, and SA Boynton signed a two-page document, entitled "Terms of Agreement—Estate of Dinesh Parikh" (the "Terms of Agreement"), which provided for the division of the estate, after expenses, as follows: 57% to Namish; 43% to Tina and Neela in accordance with an agreement between them; and reimbursement to Oxana for certain expenditures.
In the months following the mediation, the parties initially worked to finalize a written agreement to be submitted to the orphans' court for approval. On or about February 8, 2017, Oxana and Namish repudiated the Terms of Agreement. Tina filed an emergency motion to enforce the Terms of Agreement, which SA Boynton and Neela supported. The orphans' court held a hearing on April 25-26, 2017 on Tina's emergency motion. At theconclusion of the hearing, the orphans' court orally granted Tina's motion, finding that "the parties reached a binding agreement . . . reflected in the terms of the agreement document," and "to the extent" that "formal approval" by the Orphans' Court was necessary, the court "approve[s] now of the agreement." A written order was entered on May 3, 2017 (the "May 3rd Order"), granting the motion to enforce the Terms of Agreement and ordering further performance of the settlement terms by the parties. The May 3rd Order also provided that "the requirement for the Inventory and Final Accounting of the Estate is stayed
Appellants noted an appeal of the May 3rd Order and various other pleadings, culminating in 21 questions and four consolidated appeals before this Court in Parikh I. While Parikh I was pending, appellants continued to challenge the administration of Dr. Parikh's estate in the orphans' court.
On August 24, 2017, the Register of Wills issued a "Delinquent Notice," notifying the orphans' court that SA Boynton had failed to file an interim accounting for the estate. In response to that notice, on August 29, 2017, the orphans' court issued an order clarifying its May 3rd Order and specifying that "all accounting and inventory requirements are stayed, including Interim Accounting, pending further Court order." ("August 29 Order"). Appellants appealed that order (No. 1480, Sept. Term, 2017).5
On September 29, 2017, the orphans' court held a hearing on outstanding petitions and motions. The court denied Oxana's second motion to remove SA Boynton as special administrator and her motion to remove the estate matter to the Orphans' Court for Baltimore City. The court held in abeyance Oxana's motions to strike and/or dismiss Tina's claims against the estate.
On October 6, 2017 (the "October 6th Order"), the orphans' court entered a written order denying SA Boynton's petition to be appointed as personal representative but issued an order "Granting Further Specific Powers" to SA Boynton to pay certain expenses of theestate, including taxes and litigation expenses, and to manage the North Carolina divorce proceeding. Oxana appealed that order (No. 1655, Sept. Term, 2017).6
The orphans' court entered a written order denying the following petitions on December 8, 2017:
1. Oxana's petition to strike/dismiss Mr. Maloney's7 claim against [the] estate for his attorneys' fees in the amount of $57,076.54; and2. Oxana's petition to strike/dismiss Mr. Maloney's claim against [the] estate for $800,000.
The orphans' court overruled Oxana's Opposition to Special Administrator's First Notice of Payment or Reimbursement of Expenses on April 4, 2018. Oxana appealed the orders of December 8, 2017 and April 4, 2018 (No. 501, Sept. Term, 2018).8
The orphans' court overruled Oxana's Opposition to SA Boynton's Second Notice of Payment on August 24, 2018. One month later, the orphans' court overruled Oxana'sOpposition to the Third Notice of Payment. Oxana appealed these orders (No. 2312, Sept. Term, 2018).9
On March 18, 2019, the court approved SA Boynton's request for reimbursement of attorneys' fees paid to Albert Brophy, a North Carolina legal expert in the amount of $1,275.00. Oxana appealed that order. (No. 302, Sept. Term, 2018).10
In Parikh I, we determined that the orphans' court did not err in finding that the parties had reached a binding agreement regarding the distribution of the assets of the estate as reflected in the Terms of the Agreement. We summarized that agreement as follows:
[T]he Terms of Agreement ... is a binding and enforceable agreement. The parties agreed to the essential terms of settlement subject only to the approval of the Orphans' Court. Tina would share with Neela a fixed percentage of the estate after expenses based on her agreement with Neela, in exchange for dismissing various claims and renouncing her interest in certain stocks; Namish would receive a fixed percentage; Neela would share a fixed percentage with Tina, receive certain financial accounts located in India and a condo in India, and she could vacate the North Carolina divorce without opposition from the other parties; Oxana would receive payments for certain expenses that she incurred. And, upon final distribution, the parties agreed to general, mutual releases.
Parikh I, slip. op. at 21. Oxana has raised issues in the present appeals that were resolved by the May 3rd Order enforcing the Terms of Agreement, and as to those issues, our decision in Parikh I constitutes the law of the case.
Dept. of Public Safety and Correctional Servs. v. Doe, 439 Md. 201, 216 (2014) (quoting Garner v. Archers Glen Partners, Inc., 405 Md. 43, 55 (2008)).
The "doctrine lies somewhere beyond stare decisis and short of res judicata." Tu v. State, 336 Md. 406, 416 (1994)....
To continue reading
Request your trial