Title: Estate of Mouckerezi

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

Decided December 16, 1983. *994 Tanous & Beaupain, Norman S. Heitmann, III (orally), East Millinocket, for plaintiff. Law Offices of Dana C. Devoe, Kurt M. Meeuwenberg (orally), Dana C. Devoe, Bangor, for defendant. Before McKUSICK, C.J., and NICHOLS, ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN and SCOLNIK, JJ. GLASSMAN, Justice. Charles Mack, guardian of and conservator for the estate of Julia Mouckerezi, an incapacitated person, appealed from the judgment of the Penobscot County Probate Court awarding Dana C. Devoe, the guardian ad litem of Julia Mouckerezi, $8,184.04 for services rendered. Pending this appeal, Julia Mouckerezi died. Because a timely motion for substitution of party, pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 25(a), has not been filed with this Court, we dismiss the appeal. I. The Penobscot County Probate Court appointed Charles C. Mack as guardian of his mother, Julia Mouckerezi, and conservator of her estate. Among the limitations placed on Mack's conservatorship was a provision that Dana Devoe, who had previously *995 been named guardian ad litem of Julia Mouckerezi, should continue to serve in that role, and receive from Charles Mack quarterly reports on the status of Mrs. Mouckerezi's estate. At the time the Probate Court order was entered Mrs. Mouckerezi, a 91-year-old woman residing in a nursing home in Howland, Maine, was the heir to her granddaughter's estate then being probated in the State of California. Mrs. Mouckerezi moved to Florida in October, 1982. On December 28, 1982, Devoe filed a petition in the Probate Court seeking compensation for his services as guardian ad litem. Devoe asked for $8,634.04 for services, including disbursements and legal fees he incurred in California, to which Charles Mack objected. After a hearing, the court entered a judgment allowing Devoe all but $450 of the amount he had requested. On May 9, 1983, Charles Mack, as conservator of Julia Mouckerezi's estate, brought this appeal. Dana Devoe, on July 8, 1983, filed a suggestion of death upon the record, pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 25(a)(1), stating that Julia Mouckerezi had died during the pendency of this appeal. On November 3, 1983, Charles Mack filed with this court a motion to substitute "beneficiary Charles C. Mack as the proper party and appellant" in the pending appeal, reciting that Julia Mouckerezi had died June 20, 1983, and attaching a copy of her will naming Charles Mack as a beneficiary and executor/personal representative of her estate. Nothing in the record discloses that Julia Mouckerezi's will has been filed, proven, or admitted to probate.[1] II. Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) provides:[2] If a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper parties. The motion for substitution may be made by any party or by the successors or representatives of the deceased party and, together with the notice of hearing, shall be served on the parties as provided in Rule 5 and upon persons not parties in the manner provided in Rule 4 for the service of a summons. Unless the motion for substitution is made not later than 90 days after the death is suggested upon the record by service of a statement of the fact of the death as provided herein for the service of the motion, the action shall be dismissed as to the deceased party. In discussion of Rule 25(a)(1), Maine Civil Practice explains: Rule 25(a) provides for substitution of the executor or administrator of a deceased person as a party to an action in which the decedent was either plaintiff or defendant.... . . . . . Although Rule 25 is useful principally for actions pending in the Superior Court, the Law Court should take similar action in substitution of parties if the death or incompetency occurs while the action is pending in the Law Court. 1 Field, McKusick & Wroth, Maine Civil Practice § 25.1 at 406-07 (2d ed. 1970). This Court has followed the substitution *996 procedure of Rule 25 when the death of a party occurs during the pendency of an appeal to this Court. Downer v. Veilleux, 322 A.2d 82 , 83 (Me.1974) (representative of decedent's estate was substituted as party plaintiff pursuant to Rule 25(a) when appellant died prior to determination of her appeal to Law Court). See also Warren v. Municipal Officers of Gorham, 431 A.2d 624 , 624 n. 1 (Me.1981); McIntyre v. Plummer Associates, 375 A.2d 1083 , 1083 n. 1 (Me. 1977). A motion for substitution must be made not later than 90 days after service of a suggestion of death. If there is no motion for substitution made within the 90day period, the action may be dismissed. Burleigh v. Weeks, 425 A.2d 623 , 623 n. 1 (Me.1981). Dismissal is not mandatory, despite the use of the word "shall" in the rule. M.R.Civ.P. 6(b) applies to motions to substitute.[3] Thus, the Court may extend the period for substitution if a request is made before the expiration of the 90-day period. The Court also may allow substitution on motion made after the expiration of the 90-day period on a showing that the failure to act earlier was the result of excusable neglect. Charles Mack did not file a motion for substitution within the 90-day period required by Rule 25, nor did he seek an enlargement of that time pursuant to Rule 6(b). Accordingly, his motion for substitution is denied.[4] The entry is: Appeal dismissed. All concurring.