Case Title: In re Estate of Johnson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1992-02-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 91-199


 In re Estate of Gilbert D. Johnson           Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
                                              Caledonia Probate Court

                                              February Term, 1992



 Lois F. White, J.

 Charles D. Hickey, St. Johnsbury, for plaintiff-appellant

 David A. Otterman of Otterman and Allen, P.C., Barre, for defendants-
   appellees


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      Allen, C.J.  A proponent of a lost will appeals from a final decree of
 the probate court, which ruled that she failed to overcome the presumption
 of revocation.  On appeal, proponent argues that (1) the probate court
 improperly admitted evidence of the testator's character, (2) her opponents
 waived rights under the dead man's statute, and (3) she presented sufficient
 evidence to overcome the rebuttable presumption that the testator had
 revoked the lost will.  This case causes us to consider whether we may
 review, on direct appeal from a final probate decree, claims of error
 involving mixed questions of law and fact.  We conclude that our juris-
 diction is limited to the review of only "pure" questions of law capable of
 accurate resolution without reliance on factual distinctions.  We therefore
 transfer the instant appeal to the superior court.
      Our analysis begins with an examination of the pertinent statutes and
 rules of appellate procedure.  12 V.S.A. { 2551 states:  "The supreme court
 shall have jurisdiction of questions of law arising in the course of the
 proceedings of the county and probate courts in probate matters, as in other
 causes."  (Emphasis added.)  12 V.S.A { 2386(a) states: "Before final
 judgment in civil actions or proceedings in the county courts, the probate
 courts, or the district court, [an] appeal to the supreme court for the
 determination of questions of law may be taken in such manner and under such
 conditions as the supreme court may by rule provide."  (Emphasis added.)
 V.R.A.P. 13 deals with direct appeals from probate court to this Court,
 stating that the "record on appeal shall consist of a certified copy of the
 proceedings appealed from, setting forth the questions of law to be deter-
 mined by the Supreme Court."  V.R.A.P. 13(c) (emphasis added).
      We have not previously construed the term "questions of law" as used in
 the aforementioned statutes and rule.  We have, however, on occasion
 accepted appeals directly from the probate court which required us to apply
 the law to particular facts.  See, e.g., In re Estate of Perry, ___ Vt. ___,
 ___, 597 A.2d 796, 797 (1991) (Court's review of whether administrator will
 be charged with interest on estate funds depends on particular facts and
 circumstances of the case); In re Estate of Neil, 152 Vt. 124, 129-30, 565 A.2d 1309, 1312-13 (1989) (this Court considers evidence presented in
 probate court in reviewing denied claim for adverse possession); In re
 Fletcher, 144 Vt. 419, 421,