Johnson v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 14 December 2011
• Docket Number: 2009.,No. 63,Sept. Term,63
• Citation: 423 Md. 602,32 A.3d 1072
• Parties: Catherine A. Moreland JOHNSON v. James Michael JOHNSON.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

32 A.3d 1072
423 Md. 602

Catherine A. Moreland JOHNSON
v.
James Michael JOHNSON.

No. 63

Sept. Term

2009.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 14, 2011.

[32 A.3d 1073]

F. Robert Troll, Jr. (Susan Zuhowski of O'Malley, Miles, Nylen & Gilmore, P.A., Calverton, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.

Frederick R. Franke, Jr., Annapolis, MD, for Respondent.

Argued before BELL, C.J., BATTAGLIA, GREENE, ^* MURPHY, ADKINS, BARBERA, and JOHN C. ELDRIDGE, (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.ELDRIDGE, J.

[423 Md. 603] The controversy in this case is between the trustee of an inter vivos trust, petitioner Catherine A. Moreland Johnson, and her stepson, respondent James Michael Johnson, who is a “beneficiary” of the trust. ¹ The trust was described by the Court of Special Appeals as follows ( Johnson v. Johnson, 184 Md.App. 643, 647–648, 967 A.2d 274, 276–277 (2009), footnotes omitted):

[423 Md. 604] “The Johnson Family Trust was created on August 25, 2004, by Edward R. Johnson and Catherine A. Moreland Johnson, his wife. They were named as ‘Trustors' and ‘Co–Trustees' and they established the Trust, according to its express language, with the intent that, while they were both living, they would each equitably own an undivided one-half interest in all property subject to the Trust. This was to be accomplished by the use of the federal gift tax exemption for transfers between husband and wife. Trust property, which was listed in an attached ‘Schedule A,’ constituted the ‘Trust Estate’ and, due to its gifting provisions, the beneficial interest of the first Trustor to die was to be exactly equal to that of the surviving Trustor. Trust, Article I.

“On February 14, 2006, Edward was the first to die. Pursuant to the Trust instrument, the Trust Estate was then to be divided into two shares. Trust A was to be created to take advantage of the federal estate tax exclusion and other tax provisions. The remaining portion of the decedent's interest was to be distributed to an irrevocable Trust B. Trust, Article IV.

“The surviving Trustor (Catherine) is entitled to the income and potentially all of the principal of Trust A during her lifetime, if needed for her health, maintenance, reasonable comfort and support.

[32 A.3d 1074]

She has a power of appointment to dispose of the undistributed income and principal of Trust A by her Last Will and Testament. If the power is not exercised, upon her death, the Trust A corpus is to be added to Trust B and distributed according to its terms.

“Catherine has the same lifetime entitlement to the income and to principal of Trust B if needed for her health, maintenance, or support. She has a limited power of appointment over the Trust B estate which authorizes her to leave it to one or more of any children and/or other descendants of both Trustors in such shares as she may deem appropriate. Trust, Article IV. If Catherine does not exercise this limited power, distribution of the Trust B corpus is governed by the Trust's Article VI, which expressly names [423 Md. 605] Edward's son, James, as a beneficiary, if he survives Catherine.”

After Edward's death, James twice asked Catherine for an accounting of the trust, but Catherine did not answer his requests. James then instituted the present action by filing in the Circuit Court for Calvert County a “Petition For Court Assumption of Jurisdiction of [The] Trust Estate And Related Relief.” James requested, inter alia, that the court assume jurisdiction over the trust and require that Catherine file an accounting.

After Catherine's response, a hearing, and an opinion by the court, the Circuit Court issued the following order:

“ORDERED, that the Petition for Court Assumption of Jurisdiction of a Trust Estate and Related Relief is hereby GRANTED, and it is further

“ORDERED, that Respondent Catherine A. Moreland Johnson provide an accounting of the Johnson Family Trust to Petitioner James Michael Johnson....”

Catherine noted an appeal from the above-quoted order, and thereafter she filed in this Court a petition for a writ of certiorari prior to oral argument in the Court of Special Appeals. This Court denied the petition, noting that the case was “[p]ending in the Court of Special Appeals.” Johnson v. Johnson, 404 Md. 660, 948 A.2d 72 (2008).

The Court of Special Appeals, in a reported opinion, affirmed the Circuit Court's order, Johnson v. Johnson, supra, 184 Md.App. 643, 967 A.2d 274. Catherine again filed in this Court a petition for a writ of certiorari, and this time the petition was granted. Moreland Johnson v. Johnson, 409 Md. 47, 972 A.2d 861 (2009).

The petitioner Catherine has raised issues concerning the status of James, whether he has a right to an accounting, and whether the Circuit Court's order contravenes the terms of the trust. Neither the parties nor the courts below have raised any issue concerning the appealability of the Circuit Court's order. Nevertheless, an order of a circuit [423 Md. 606] court must be appealable in order to confer jurisdiction upon an appellate court, and this jurisdictional issue, if noticed by an appellate court, will be addressed sua sponte. See, e.g., Stachowski v. State, 416 Md....