Case Title: Estate of Theodore C. Ackley

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2023 ME 44

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2023-08-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2023 ME 44 
Docket: 
Pen-22-306 
Argued: 
March 8, 2023 
Decided: 
August 3, 2023 
 
Panel: 
STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, JABAR, HORTON, CONNORS, and LAWRENCE, JJ. 
 
 
ESTATE OF THEODORE C. ACKLEY 
 
 
JABAR, J. 
[¶1]  Jean Voelker appeals from a judgment of the Penobscot County 
Probate Court (Bearor, J.), holding that the document proffered by Voelker as 
the last will and testament of Theodore C. Ackley (Decedent) was not a valid 
holographic will.  Voelker contends that the court erred by granting Joseph A. 
Ackley’s pretrial motion and not addressing all the issues raised in her 
counter-motion in which she alleged that the Decedent’s will was lost and she 
should be allowed the opportunity to present evidence to prove the existence, 
contents, and validity of the Decedent’s lost will, or, in the alternative, that the 
copy of the Decedent’s will she submitted with her petition for formal probate 
was valid as a holographic will.  Because the Probate Court did not address all 
the issues raised in Voelker’s counter-motion, we dismiss the appeal as 
interlocutory. 
 
 
2 
I.  BACKGROUND 
[¶2]  The following facts stem from the Probate Court’s findings and 
procedural record and are supported by competent record evidence.  See 
Guardianship of Donovan C., 2019 ME 118, ¶ 2, 212 A.3d 851.  The Decedent 
passed away on April 3, 2021.  On April 20, 2021, Ackley, the Decedent’s son, 
filed an application for informal probate of the last will and testament of the 
Decedent and included with the application a will dated April 15, 2016.  Letters 
of authority were issued on April 23, 2021, appointing Ackley as personal 
representative of the Decedent’s estate. 
[¶3]  On August 6, 2021, Voelker filed a petition for formal probate and 
submitted with the petition a purported copy of the Decedent’s will dated 
November 21, 2016. 
[¶4]  On April 7, 2022, Ackley filed a motion for judgment as a matter of 
law arguing that Voelker’s “purported holographic will [was] not a valid will 
under Maine Law” and that it did not “meet any of the other exceptions to the 
requirements of [18-C M.R.S. § 2-502(1) (2023)].”  Voelker filed an answer and 
counter-motion for judgment as a matter of law on May 9, 2022, arguing that 
the Decedent had properly executed a valid will on November 21, 2016, and 
that the Decedent had retained the now lost original will, or, in the alternative, 
 
 
3 
that the document she submitted with her petition for formal probate—which 
she claimed was a copy of the November 21, 2016, will but without the 
signatures of the witnesses that were on the original, lost will—was valid as a 
holographic will pursuant to 18-C M.R.S. § 2-502(2).  Voelker contended that 
18-C M.R.S. § 3-402 (2023) provided for formal testacy of a will that was lost, 
destroyed, or otherwise unavailable, and that she should be permitted to 
introduce extrinsic evidence to prove the existence, contents, and validity of the 
lost will.  Voelker attached two affidavits to support her allegation that the 
Decedent had properly executed and retained the November 21, 2016, lost will. 
[¶5]  On July 28, 2022, the Probate Court issued an order granting 
Ackley’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding that the document 
proffered by Voelker was “not a valid holographic [w]ill nor d[id] it meet any of 
the other exceptions to the requirements of 18-C M.R.S. § 2-502(1), nor d[id] it 
satisfy any other requirements of Maine law to be a valid [w]ill.”  The Probate 
Court did not, however, render a decision on Voelker’s counter-motion. 
[¶6]  On August 11, 2022, Voelker timely moved for findings, for 
amendment of the judgment, and for a new trial, contending that the Probate 
Court failed to address her claim of the existence of a lost will.  Ackley timely 
objected to Voelker’s motion on August 12, 2022.  On August 25, 2022, the 
 
 
4 
Probate Court denied Voelker’s request for amendment of the judgment and for 
a new trial, and made four additional findings to support, and to be read in 
tandem with, the court’s July 28, 2022, order.  The Probate Court’s order 
making additional findings addressed the holographic will issue raised by 
Ackley’s motion but did not address Voelker’s counter-motion or her claim of a 
lost will.  Voelker timely appealed on September 14, 2022.  See M.R. App. P. 2B. 
II.  DISCUSSION 
[¶7]  As a threshold matter, we must address whether the Probate Court’s 
order constitutes a final judgment.  See In re Estate of Hiller, 2014 ME 2, ¶ 17, 
86 A.3d 9.  “Generally, a judgment must be final in order for an appeal to be 
cognizable.”  Id. (citing Estate of Dore v. Dore, 2009 ME 21, ¶ 11, 965 A.2d 862).  
Even if neither party raises the finality issue, “our jurisprudence requires us to 
address the issue to assure that judicial resources are not wasted in 
consideration of appeals of preliminary orders that do not finally resolve a 
pending action.”  Sanborn v. Sanborn, 2005 ME 95, ¶ 5, 877 A.2d 1075.  “A court 
order that adjudicates less than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of less 
than all the parties does not terminate the action as to any of the claims or 
parties.”  Id. ¶ 4; see M.R. Civ. P. 54(b)(1).  “Such an order is not a final 
 
 
5 
judgment,” and an appeal of such an order is interlocutory.  Sanborn, 2005 ME 
95, ¶¶ 4, 6, 877 A.2d 1075.   
[¶8]  In Ackley’s motion, he challenges the legal sufficiency of the 
document proffered by Voelker as a holographic will.  Voelker, in her answer 
and counter-motion, argues that the proffered document is valid as a 
holographic will, but she also argues that even if the Probate Court concludes 
that it is not a valid holographic will, then she should be permitted to introduce 
extrinsic evidence to prove the existence, contents, and validity of the 
Decedent’s November 21, 2016, lost will pursuant to 18-C M.R.S. § 3-402.   
[¶9]  The Probate Court adequately addressed Ackley’s motion and the 
issue of whether the proffered document was a valid holographic will, but it 
failed to address Voelker’s counter-motion, especially the issue of the 
Decedent’s lost will.  Because the Probate Court’s order failed to address all the 
claims raised by Voelker’s counter-motion, it is not a final judgment and this 
appeal is interlocutory. 
[¶10]  “A party urging that we reach the merits of an otherwise 
interlocutory appeal has the burden of demonstrating” that one of the 
exceptions to the final judgment rule “justifies our reaching the merits of the 
appeal.”  Maples v. Compass Harbor Vill. Condo. Ass’n, 2022 ME 26, ¶ 16, 273 A.3d 
 
 
6 
358 (quotation marks omitted) (“The exceptions include (1) the death knell 
exception, (2) the collateral order exception, and (3) the judicial economy 
exception.”).  The parties did not raise the issue of whether this appeal was 
interlocutory, nor did they contend that an exception to the rule applies.  
Therefore, we conclude that the Probate Court’s order is not a final judgment, 
and the appeal brought from that interlocutory order must be dismissed. 
The entry is: 
 
Appeal dismissed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
James M. Bowie, Esq., and Matthew S. Wahrer, Esq. (orally), Thompson Bowie 
& Hatch LLC, Portland, for appellant Jean Voelker 
 
William N. Palmer, Esq. (orally), Gray & Palmer, Bangor, for appellee Joseph A. 
Ackley 
 
 
Penobscot County Probate Court docket number 2021-870 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY