Title: In re Conservatorship of Emma

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2017 ME 1 
Docket: 
Ken-16-32 
Argued: 
October 25, 2016 
Decided: 
January 5, 2017 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
CONSERVATORSHIP OF EMMA 
 
 
SAUFLEY, C.J. 
[¶1]  The Kennebec County Probate Court (J. Mitchell, J.) has reported a 
question to us that concerns public access to information held by probate 
courts 
in 
electronic 
format, 
specifically, 
financial 
information 
in 
conservatorship matters.  Because we conclude that the reported question 
(1) raises broad issues that extend beyond the controversy at hand, 
(2) requests decisions that are inconsistent with our basic function as an 
appellate court, and (3) may be rendered moot by subsequent proceedings, 
we decline to answer the reported question. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
 
[¶2]  In February 2011, Emma’s husband petitioned to be appointed as 
her guardian and conservator in the Kennebec County Probate Court.1  He 
                                         
1  We granted the current conservator’s motion to de-identify the protected person in this matter 
and have provided the pseudonym “Emma.”  
 
2 
amended his petition, with leave of the court, to seek the appointment of an 
attorney as Emma’s guardian and himself as the conservator of her estate.  As 
conservator, he filed an inventory and accounts identifying the approximate 
value of the estate’s assets.  See 18-A M.R.S. §§ 5-418, 5-419 (2015).   
 
[¶3]  Emma’s husband died in February 2014, and her son successfully 
petitioned to be appointed as the new conservator.  With his petition, Emma’s 
son filed an updated inventory of the estate’s assets indicating an increase in 
the value of the estate.  After being appointed as the estate’s conservator in 
October 2014, the son filed an amended inventory. 
 
[¶4]  In August 2015, Emma’s son, as conservator, moved to have 
financial details regarding the value of the estate removed from the publicly 
available docket in the case, pursuant to M.R. Prob. P. 92.12.  The court 
summarily denied the motion.  The conservator moved for the court to 
reconsider and to amend the judgment pursuant to M.R. Prob. P. 59 and M.R. 
Civ. P. 59.  The conservator focused in this motion on limiting the availability 
of the inventory and account information on the Probate Court’s public 
website.  After a hearing, the court indicated that it would consider whether to 
report a question to us pursuant to M.R. App. P. 24(a).   
 
3 
 
[¶5]  While the court had the matter under consideration, the 
conservator filed a request for the financial information to be removed from 
the public docket as an accommodation pursuant to the Americans with 
Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 12101-12213 (LEXIS through Pub. L. No. 
114-248), based on his argument that persons without the kinds of disabilities 
that invoke probate court jurisdiction are not subject to public disclosure of 
that information.  Two days later, the court reported to us the following 
question: 
 
When a conservator files an inventory and account for the 
ward, a. should the image of the documents be available on line; 
b. should the summary numbers from the documents be available 
on line while the document images remain as publicly available 
only in the court (current practice in Kennebec); c. should neither 
the image of the document nor any summary numbers be 
available on line (current practice in fourteen counties); or 
d. should the Probate Court adopt a policy different from a, b, or c 
above? 
 
The court made clear that, despite the request for ADA accommodation, 
“[t]hat does not appear to be a recurring type of request and no certification of 
that question is implied.”  The court entered a separate ruling on the request 
for ADA accommodation, however, stating that it had “certified a similar issue 
to the Law Court,” and that “[p]ending the result of that certification, but 
without deciding the issue finally, the Court will accommodate [the 
 
4 
conservator] by removing from the docket, as available on line, the summary 
numbers from the inventory and account he has filed for [Emma].”   
II.  DISCUSSION 
 
[¶6]  By rule, a court “may, where all parties appearing so agree, report 
any action in the trial court to the Law Court if it is of the opinion that any 
question of law presented is of sufficient importance or doubt to justify the 
report, provided that the decision thereof would in at least one alternative 
finally dispose of the action.”  M.R. App. P. 24(a).  A properly reported action 
“shall be entered in the Law Court and heard and determined in the manner 
provided in case of appeals, with the plaintiff or the party aggrieved by a 
reported interlocutory ruling being treated as the appellant.”  M.R. 
App. P. 24(d). 
 
[¶7]  Because Rule 24 exists as an exception to the final judgment rule, 
see Littlebrook Airpark Condo. Ass’n v. Sweet Peas, LLC, 2013 ME 89, ¶ 10, 81 
A.3d 348, we begin by determining whether it is appropriate to accept the 
reported question for response.  “When the trial court reports questions for 
review, we independently determine whether acceptance of the report is 
consistent with our basic function as an appellate court, or would improperly 
place us in the role of an advisory board.”  Id. ¶ 9 (quotation marks omitted).  
 
5 
“In making this determination, we consider the following factors: (1) whether 
the question reported is of sufficient importance and doubt to outweigh the 
policy against piecemeal litigation; (2) whether the question might not have to 
be decided because of other possible dispositions; and (3) whether a decision 
on the issue would, in at least one alternative, dispose of the action.”  Id. 
(quotation marks omitted). 
 
[¶8]  The first factor, in essence, asks whether the issue presented is 
sufficiently significant to outweigh the purposes served by the final judgment 
rule.  Id. ¶ 10.  The second factor addresses the possibility of other rulings 
rendering the question moot.  Id. ¶ 12.  If there exist alternative grounds that 
could result in a final disposition, we are unlikely to accept the question.  See 
id.  The third factor asks whether at least one possible answer to the reported 
question would finally resolve the dispute.  Id. ¶ 13. 
 
[¶9]  Regarding the first factor, the Probate Court has reported a 
significant and important question concerning the availability of court records 
and docket information in electronic format.  Across the country, state and 
local courts are reviewing and amending rules addressing the shift from paper 
to electronic filing and file storage.  See generally Hon. Paul H. Anderson, 
Future Trends in Public Access: Court Information, Privacy and Technology, in 
 
6 
Future Trends in State Courts 10-11, 14-16 (National Center for State Courts 
ed. 2011); see, e.g., Vt. Pub. Acc. Ct. Rec. R. 1-8.  The question submitted here 
concerns important public policy matters generated by the decisions of 
Maine’s probate judges to modernize probate records by making certain court 
records and docket information available to the public in electronic format, 
rather than confining public access to paper files and docket records housed 
at particular courthouses.   
[¶10]  Although the question is important, and addresses significant 
matters of interest to the public, it is truly a question of policy, with 
long-ranging and far-reaching implications.  The issues raised by the question 
do not lend themselves to an adjudicatory response.  Rather, they should be 
answered through rulemaking where the myriad questions regarding the 
treatment of digital records can be addressed together in an open forum.  
Unfortunately, no rulemaking or statutory amendments concerning privacy 
and transparency issues were proposed or enacted before the digitization of 
probate records, leaving many weighty questions, including those which the 
Kennebec County Probate Court has reported to us, unanswered.   
[¶11]  The second factor also militates strongly against our ruling on the 
question reported to us.  The entire issue raised with respect to the Estate 
 
7 
may be moot because the court may continue to preclude public access to the 
docketed financial information about Emma’s estate based on the ADA, an 
independent legal authority.  Such a ruling could obviate the need for any 
opinion from us or could, if properly presented in an appeal from a final 
determination, require us to address additional legal issues. 
[¶12]  Regarding the third factor, the broad question presented could, in 
at least one alternative, resolve the finite dispute about the display of Emma’s 
estate’s financial information in the docket entries publicly available on the 
Internet.  It would not, however, resolve any substantive disputes regarding 
the accounting or other matters related to the estate, and would not finally 
resolve all issues arising from the conservator’s initial request, which asked 
the court to limit the inclusion of financial information in all docket entries, 
whether or not available on the Internet.  In sum, an answer to the question 
propounded by the Probate Court will not have an impact on the substantive 
proceeding before the court and should not be addressed unless a final 
judgment has been entered.   
[¶13]  Accordingly, we decline to answer the Kennebec County Probate 
Court’s question seeking an advisory opinion on matters that reach far beyond 
the controversy presented in the matter at hand.  We cannot undertake de 
 
8 
facto rulemaking—without public notice and a full opportunity for public 
comment—by responding to a reported question that seeks an advisory 
opinion in a matter that may well be resolved on a separate legal basis.  
Rulemaking or statutory action on such policy questions would have provided, 
and still may provide, the broader guidance that is sought in the Probate 
Court’s question. 
[¶14]  Because the reported question may not be answered consistent 
with our basic function as an appellate court and instead seeks an advisory 
opinion on an issue that may be rendered moot by subsequent 
decision-making, we discharge the reported question. 
The entry is: 
Report discharged. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Patrice A. Putman, Esq., Levey, Wagley & Putman, P.A., Winthrop, and Zachary 
L. Heiden, Esq. (orally), American Civil Liberties Union of Maine Foundation, 
Portland, for appellant conservator of Emma 
 
Sigmund D. Schutz, Esq., Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Portland, for 
appellee Maine Freedom of Information Coalition 
 
 
Kennebec County Probate Court docket number 2011-0102-2 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY