In re Estate of Purswani
| Decision Date | 07 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. COA19-263,COA19-263 |
| Citation | 839 S.E.2d 874 (Table) |
| Parties | IN RE ESTATE OF Vijay Krish PURSWANI |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Krish Purswani, respondent-appellant, pro se.
Black, Slaughter & Black, P.A., by T. Keith Black and Jennifer L. Ruby, for estate-appellee.
This appeal arises out of the administration of the estate of Vijay Krish Purswani (Decedent), who was the son of Krish Purswani (Appellant) and Kiran Purswani (Appellee). Appellant, proceeding pro se , attempts to appeal from numerous orders entered throughout this litigation and raises thirteen issues on appeal. Several of these orders, however, and the corresponding issues on appeal, are not properly before this Court. We therefore limit our factual recitation to those facts necessary to resolve the issues that are properly before us.
When Appellant and Appellee obtained a final decree of divorce in 2002, they also executed a final parenting plan that provided the minor children, including Decedent, would reside primarily with Appellee and that Appellee would have the majority of the decision-making authority regarding the children. On 10 April 2016, seventeen-year-old Decedent was a passenger in a vehicle involved in a high-speed, single-car accident, resulting in his death. Appellee sought to have Decedent cremated in accordance with Hindu tradition. On or about 14 April 2016, Appellant "executed an Application for the Authorization of the Cremation Process and Instructions for the Disposition of [Decedent]." However, at Decedent's funeral on 15 April 2016, Appellant "appeared and objected to the cremation and withdrew his consent to cremation and as a result the funeral home did not believe it could proceed." Appellant did not believe Decedent's death was caused by a single-car accident; rather, Appellant asserted Decedent "was actually murdered and [Appellee] was involved in ordering his murder."
Appellee filed a complaint against Appellant in Guilford County District Court, requesting a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction against Appellant from interfering or stopping the cremation of Decedent. On 26 and 29 April 2016, the trial court held a hearing on Appellee's complaint and requests for injunctions. At this hearing, the trial court heard testimony from the state trooper that responded to the single-car accident—who opined "the injuries suffered by [Decedent were] consistent with a single vehicle automobile accident in which the vehicle rolled over and a body [was] ejected"—and from the medical examiner that conducted an examination of Decedent's body on the day of his death—who "found the injuries on [Decedent's] body to be consistent with an automobile accident in which a body is ejected from an automobile."
Thereafter, the trial court entered an order on 6 May 2016, finding "[n]either the medical examiner nor the trooper indicated that there was any evidence of criminal activity other than the texting while driving which contributed to the accident and [Decedent's] demise." The trial court ordered Appellee would have the sole authority to decide whether to cremate Decedent but allowed Appellant until 13 May 2016 to have an autopsy of Decedent conducted. However, no autopsy was ever conducted.
On 19 July 2016, Appellant applied for and was issued letters of administration by Guilford County Clerk of Superior Court Lisa Johnson-Tonkins (Johnson-Tonkins) for the estate of Decedent. After learning of this event, Appellee filed a verified petition for revocation of letters of administration on approximately 8 August 2016, seeking the removal of Appellant as administrator of Decedent's estate and appointment of her as administratrix. Appellee's petition came on for hearing before the clerk's office on 12 October 2016.
On the day of the hearing on 12 October 2016, Appellant also filed a motion for recusal (Motion for Recusal), requesting, inter alia , Johnson-Tonkins recuse herself from the matter because of a perceived conflict of interest. However, Johnson-Tonkins was not the hearing officer for the parties' hearing; rather, an assistant clerk of court presided over the hearing. During the hearing, Appellant notified the assistant clerk of court that he was not feeling well and needed to go to the hospital. After EMS took Appellant to the hospital, the assistant clerk of court continued the hearing until 10 November 2016. On 14 October 2016, the assistant clerk of court entered an order (Recusal Order) denying Appellant's Motion for Recusal because it was not timely filed or calendared and because Johnson-Tonkins did not preside over the hearing.
On 10 November 2016, the assistant clerk of court held a hearing on Appellee's petition. Appellee presented evidence at this hearing; however, Appellant was not present due to illness. On 15 November 2016, the assistant clerk of court entered an order (Revocation Order) revoking Appellant's letters of administration because of his "private interest" in the administration of Decedent's estate and appointing Appellee as administratrix of Decedent's estate. The Revocation Order also noted Appellee "will be represented and aided by the law firm of Black, Slaughter & Black, P.A. in the wrongful death matter and the Estate filings and obligations."
On 28 November 2016, Appellant filed notice of appeal to superior court from both the Recusal Order and Revocation Order (Notice of Appeal from Clerk Orders). The Record before us includes no indication that Appellant's Notice of Appeal from Clerk Orders was ever heard in superior court. Indeed, Appellant in his appellate brief notes this "appeal is pending."
On 31 October 2017, Appellee, through her counsel T. Keith Black of Black, Slaughter & Black, P.A. (Attorney Black), filed a Petition for Approval of Settlement (Settlement Petition) in Guilford County Superior Court. In her Settlement Petition, Appellee alleged that after investigating individuals or entities potentially liable for the wrongful death of Decedent, recovery was likely limited to the insurance policy limits, totaling $200,000.00, of the owner of the automobile involved in Decedent's death. Accordingly, the Settlement Petition sought approval of a settlement agreement in this amount for the settlement and resolution of the wrongful-death claim of Decedent's estate.
On 1 December 2017, Appellant filed two motions with Guilford County Superior Court in opposition to the Settlement Petition. The first motion (Objection Motion) requested the trial court deny the Settlement Petition because, according to Appellant, Appellee was not authorized to enter into this settlement, the amount of the settlement was too low and thus "not fair, nor reasonable, and certainly not in the best interests of the Estate[,]" and Attorney Black was disqualified to represent Decedent's estate. As for the second motion (Motion to Disqualify), Appellant requested the trial court disqualify Attorney Black because of an alleged conflict of interest.
On 2 January 2018, the trial court held a hearing on the Settlement Petition and Respondent's Objection Motion and Motion to Disqualify. On 30 January 2018, the trial court enter an Order denying Appellant's Motion to Disqualify.1 In its Order, the trial court also noted Decedent's estate had obtained outside counsel (Attorney Walker) to "conduct a fact investigation independent of that performed by [Attorney Black] and to provide advice to [Appellee] concerning the proposed settlement[.]" Because Attorney Walker had only recently been engaged by the estate, the trial court continued the hearing on Appellee's Settlement Petition to allow Attorney Walker sufficient time to conduct his independent investigation.
On 19 February 2018, the trial court held a hearing on Appellee's Settlement Petition. After this hearing, in which both parties presented evidence and testimony, the trial court entered its Order Approving Settlement on 8 March 2018. The Order Approving Settlement found "there are no other parties from which a recovery is reasonable or probable" and that Appellee and the insurer of the automobile had agreed to a settlement in the full amount of the policy limits, $200,000.00. Accordingly, the Order Approving Settlement authorized Appellee to settle the wrongful-death claim of Decedent's estate.
Here, Appellant presents to this Court thirteen issues on appeal. Issues 1-6 and 8 deal with certain alleged errors of the assistant clerk of court by entering the Recusal Order and Revocation Order. These two Orders, however, are not properly before this Court.
In In re Estate of Johnson , our Court explained Section 1-301.2 of our General Statutes governs appeals from an order of the clerk of superior court granting or denying a petition to revoke letters testamentary or letters of administration. ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 824 S.E.2d 857, 861-62 (2019) (citations omitted). Section 1-301.2(e) provides "a party aggrieved by an order or judgment of a clerk that finally disposed of a special proceeding, may, within 10 days of entry of the order or judgment, appeal to the appropriate court for a hearing de novo." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-301.2(e) (2019) ; see also In re Estate of Johnson , ––– N.C. App. at ––––, 824 S.E.2d at 861-62 (). Whereas, all other appeals from orders entered by the clerk of court in the administration of a decedent's estate are governed by Section 1-301.3(c), which provides—"A party aggrieved by an order or judgment of the clerk may appeal to the superior court by filing a written notice of the appeal with the clerk within 10 days of entry of the order or judgment after service of the order on that party." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-301.3(c) (2019).
Accordingly, Appellant's Notice of Appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial