Voita v. Parrish
| Decision Date | 09 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | A14-1101 |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
| Parties | John R. Voita, Special Administrator of the Estate of Vivian P. Voita, Appellant, v. Thomas Parrish, Respondent. |
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
Affirmed as modified
Dakota County District Court
John R. Voita, Amery, Wisconsin (pro se appellant)
Arthur L. Brown, Briggs and Morgan, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Larkin, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Pro se appellant, special administrator of a probate estate in Ramsey County District Court, challenges the dismissal of a lawsuit he filed against respondent in DakotaCounty District Court, seeking to recover funds allegedly diverted from the estate. Appellant argues that the Dakota County District Court erred by concluding that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction and that appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We conclude that the Dakota County District Court did not err by declining to exercise jurisdiction. However, because the district court declined to exercise jurisdiction, it should not have reached the merits of appellant's complaint and dismissed it with prejudice. We therefore affirm the dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, but we modify the dismissal so that it is without prejudice.
Vivian P. Voita died on November 19, 2010. Appellant John R. Voita and respondent Thomas J. Parrish are named beneficiaries in decedent's will. In December 2011, Voita petitioned the probate division of the Ramsey County District Court (probate court) for formal probate of the will and appointment as personal representative of the estate. In February 2012, the probate court appointed Voita as Special Administrator of the Estate of Vivian P. Voita. The probate court authorized Voita to research the existence of probate assets and to access decedent's banking and financial records.
After reviewing decedent's financial records, Voita notified the probate court that $77,643.95 was missing from the estate. Voita alleged that decedent sold her home in March 2003 for approximately $161,000. In April 2003, the decedent and Parrish opened a joint account and deposited $115,000 in the account. On the day the account was opened, decedent and Parrish purchased a certificate of deposit in the amount of $45,000. In May 2003, Parrish purchased three $25,000 certificates of deposit solely in his name.In September 2012, Voita asked the probate court to order Parrish to turn over all of his financial records and tax returns from 2003 through 2010.
In response, a probate court referee informed Voita, by letter dated September 28, 2012, that "[u]nder the Minnesota Multi-Party Accounts Act, funds in a joint account go to the survivor of the account absent evidence that it should go elsewhere." The referee further informed Voita that "[o]nce these funds were put into joint ownership with Thomas Parrish, the money was no longer in a position to be part of the probate estate or to be distributed in accordance with the Will unless you can provide a legal basis and evidence that it should." It does not appear that Voita took further action in the probate court. In this appeal, Voita states that "[t]he estate of [decedent] has never been settled as of this date, and can be made active at any time by [Voita]."
In February 2014, Voita filed an action for conversion against Parrish in Dakota County District Court. The complaint alleged that Parrish had been decedent's conservator and that he "converted to his own use, funds of Vivian P. Voita during her lifetime, in excess of $77,643.95," as well as additional funds after her death. The complaint described the joint account and certificates of deposit, and alleged that there was no evidence that monies used to purchase the three certificates of deposit in May 2003 were ever returned to the decedent. Parrish moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the probate court had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter and that Voita had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
In April 2014, the Dakota County District Court granted Parrish's motion to dismiss. The district court ruled that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction overmatters included in the probate court file. The district court also ruled that Voita failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and dismissed his complaint with prejudice. This appeal follows.
Voita challenges the district court's conclusions that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and that he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. He asks this court to set aside the district court's decision and order the district court to transfer jurisdiction to Ramsey County District Court or to dismiss the matter without prejudice.
"Subject-matter jurisdiction is 'a court's power to hear and determine cases of the general class or categor[ies] to which the proceedings in question belong.'" Bode v. Minn. Dep't of Natural Res., 594 N.W.2d 257, 259 (Minn. App. 1999) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1425 (6th ed. 1990)), aff'd, 612 N.W.2d 862 (Minn. 2000). The existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law which this court reviews de novo. Shaw v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 594 N.W.2d 187, 190 (Minn. App. 1999), review denied (Minn. July 28, 1999).
Probate courts have "been consolidated into district courts of general jurisdiction." In re Estate of Janecek, 610 N.W.2d 638, 641 (Minn. 2000). "There is no district court which is not also a probate court, and no distinction between the courts." In re Estate of Mathews, 558 N.W.2d 263, 265 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Mar. 20, 1997); see also Minn. Stat. §§ 484.011 (), .86, subd. 1 (2014) ().
A probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over actions "to determine how decedents' estates subject to the laws of this state are to be administered, expended and distributed." Minn. Stat. § 524.3-105 (2014). The probate court has concurrent jurisdiction of any other action in which the personal representative may be a party, including actions to determine title to property alleged to belong to the estate. Id. The probate court also has jurisdiction "over all problems that arise in resolving an estate except those issues excluded by statute." In re Estate of Sangren, 504 N.W.2d 786, 789 (Minn. App. 1993).
Because Voita brought his conversion claim in his capacity as Special Administrator of the Estate of Vivian P. Voita to recover funds that allegedly belong to the estate, the probate court has jurisdiction over the claim. See Minn. Stat. § 524.3-105. But it does not follow that the Dakota County District Court lacked jurisdiction. Instead, the probate court and Dakota County District Court had concurrent jurisdiction. See Minn. Const. art. VI, § 3 (); Minn. Stat. § 524.3-105 (). We nonetheless conclude that the Dakota County District Court did not err by dismissing the conversion action on jurisdictional grounds.
"The first-filed rule provides that where two courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the first to acquire jurisdiction generally has priority to decide the case." Medtronic, Inc.v. Advanced Bionics Corp., 630 N.W.2d 438, 448-49 (Minn. App. 2001). The rule is that:
Where two actions between the same parties, on the same subject, and to test the same rights, are brought in different courts having concurrent jurisdiction, the court which first acquires jurisdiction, its power being adequate to the administration of complete justice, retains its jurisdiction and may dispose of the whole controversy, and no court of coordinate power is at liberty to interfere with its action. This rule rests upon comity and the necessity of avoiding conflict in the execution of judgments by independent courts . . . .
State ex rel. Minn. Nat'l Bank of Duluth v. District Court, 195 Minn. 169, 173, 262 N.W. 155, 157 (Minn. 1935) (quotation omitted).
In deciding whether to defer to another court's exercise of jurisdiction, "a district court considers judicial economy, comity between courts, and the cost to and the convenience of the litigants; and must assess the possibility of multiple determinations of the same dispute." Medtronic, 630 N.W.2d at 449. The second court "should seek to determine which of the two actions will serve best the needs of the parties by providing a comprehensive solution of the general conflict." Minn. Mut. Life. Ins. v. Anderson, 410 N.W.2d 80, 82 (Minn. App. 1987) (quotation omitted). Application of the first-filed rule is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Medtronic, 630 N.W.2d at 449.
In dismissing Voita's conversion action for lack of jurisdiction, the district court reasoned that "[t]he claims in this matter are the same claims that were...
To continue reading
Request your trial