Opinion ID: 3173394
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Challenges to Allowance of the Will

Text: ¶ 13. We first address appellants’ arguments that the civil division erred in finding it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the issues raised in the appeals from the probate division’s decisions on their motions challenging allowance of the will relative to notice and whether the will is conditional. Appellants raise two arguments: (1) that the civil division erred in concluding that grandson’s appeal was of the probate division’s February 2013 order allowing the will, when in fact he was appealing the probate division’s December 2013 decision denying his September 2013 motion challenging the allowance; and (2) that whether a will is conditional is not a question of allowance, but of construction, and that their appeal was neither a collateral 5 attack nor untimely. We affirm the civil division’s conclusion that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over grandson’s improper notice argument, but reverse and remand on the question of whether the will is conditional. ¶ 14. We review “dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo with all uncontroverted factual allegations of the complaint accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Town of Bridgewater v. Vt. Dep’t of Taxes, 173 Vt. 509, 510, 787 A.2d 1234, 1236 (2001) (mem.) (quotation omitted); see V.R.C.P. 12(b)(1). ¶ 15. Proper resolution of each argument requires an initial discussion of what it means to allow a will to probate and the concomitant consequences stemming therefrom. Under Vermont law, “[a] will shall not pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed.” 14 V.S.A. § 101. “In this state the probate of a will is a proceeding in rem, being in form and substance upon the will itself to determine its validity. The judgment determines the status of the instrument, whether it is or is not the will of the testator.” Everett v. Wing, 103 Vt. 488, 492, 156 A. 393, 395 (1931); see Vt. Baptist State Convention v. Ladd’s Estate, 59 Vt. 5, 6, 9 A. 1, 2 (1887) (setting forth that probate of will establishes capacity of testator); see also 14 V.S.A. § 102 (“The allowance of a will of real or personal estate shall be conclusive as to its due execution.”). Accordingly, an order of the probate division allowing a will addresses only a very specific set of issues related to whether the instrument is or is not the will of the testator and whether it is otherwise valid.4 See Everett, 103 Vt. at 492, 156 A. at 395 (describing probate of will as determining validity and status of instrument, whether or not it is will of testator); Woodruff v. Taylor, 20 Vt. 65 (1847) (“The probate of a will . . . determines the status of the subject matter of the proceeding. The judgment is upon the thing itself.”) (emphasis in original); 4 For example, did the testator have the requisite mental capacity; was the execution free from undue influence, fraud, or duress; and was the will properly witnessed. 6 see also 14 V.S.A. § 5 (stating that a will is not valid unless in writing, signed by testator, and witnessed). Such an order is conclusive as to the will’s “due execution” and constitutes an appealable final order as to matters covered by the order. See 14 V.S.A. § 102; In re Estate of Perry, 2012 VT 9, ¶ 9, 191 Vt. 589, 39 A.3d 1060 (mem.) (“Because an order allowing a will is a final, appealable order, any later petitions to allow a codicil are impermissible collateral attacks.”). The allowance of a will does not prevent a subsequent challenge to issues regarding the proper interpretation or construction of the instrument itself.
¶ 16. As to their challenge to notice, appellants contend that the civil division erroneously considered appellant-grandson’s September 2013 motion to be an appeal or collateral attack on the probate division’s February 2013 order allowing the will, when, in fact, it was an appeal of the probate division’s December 2013 denial of his motion. For this reason, appellants argue that his appeal was timely and the civil division had subject matter jurisdiction to consider whether notice was required to testator’s grandchildren. We disagree with this reasoning. The probate division issued its order admitting testator’s will on February 26, 2013. As an interested person, appellant-grandson received notice of that order. Any challenge to the validity of the probate division’s order allowing the will, including appellant-grandson’s September 2013 motion, was required to be made within thirty days thereof. See Ransom v. Bebernitz, 172 Vt. 423, 428, 782 A.2d 1155, 1159 (2001) (finding unappealed decree of probate division conclusive as to all matters covered by the decree); see also V.R.A.P. 4 (notice of appeal must be made within thirty days.). It is undisputed that no such timely filing was made, as appellant-grandson did not file his challenge to the allowance of the will until September 17, 2013, several months past the thirty-day timeframe. 7 ¶ 17. Neither the probate division’s decision to address the merits of appellantgrandson’s September 2013 motion in its December 2013 written decision, nor appellants’ timely appeal of that decision, re-opens the matter. Appellant-grandson received notice of the probate division’s order allowing the will, and although he had the opportunity to appeal that decision within 30 days, he did not do so until September 17, 2013. That filing challenges the validity of the February 26, 2013 order and constitutes an impermissible collateral attack. See In re Estate of Perry, 2012 VT 9, ¶ 9. The civil division was therefore correct in concluding that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to review appellant-grandson’s claim of improper notice. ¶ 18. Although we affirm the civil division’s dismissal of the notice argument, we take the opportunity to address its substance—that is, whether the probate division’s failure to notify all “interested persons” prior to allowing the will was in error. Cf. OCS/Glenn Pappas v. O’Brien, 2013 VT 11, ¶ 41, 193 Vt. 340, 67 A.3d 916 (reviewing argument on merits even though argument was precluded as impermissible collateral attack). ¶ 19. “When a will is delivered to a probate division of the superior court accompanied by a petition to commence a probate proceeding, the court shall schedule a hearing and notice shall be given [under the Rules of Probate Procedure].” 14 V.S.A. § 107(a); see also V.R.P.P 3(a), (b) (explaining that generally probate proceeding begins with filing of petition to open decedent’s estate). Under Rule 17(a), “[a]t the commencement of a probate proceeding all interested persons shall be considered parties and shall be served with notice.” V.R.P.P. 17(a). At this stage, “interested person” includes, in relevant part, heirs, devisees, legatees, children, and spouses. V.R.P.P. 17(a)(1). The parties to this appeal, as heirs, devisees, legatees, and children, meet this broad definition. Under 14 V.S.A. § 107(a), the probate division should have scheduled a hearing on the allowance of the will. 8 ¶ 20. The receipt by the probate division of written consent to the allowance of the will by the heirs at law and next of kin dispensed with the need for testimony on the allowance of the will. 14 V.S.A. § 108. The receipt of those consents did not mean, however, that the hearing required by 14 V.S.A. § 107(a) was no longer necessary. While testimony to allow the will was no longer required, a hearing would have afforded those entitled to notice, which in this case included legatee appellant-grandson, the opportunity to attend the hearing and object to the allowance of the will. ¶ 21. Here, however, the failure of the probate division to hold the allowance hearing and to notify appellant-grandson of it is of no consequence. Appellant-grandson did receive notice of the allowance of the will and did not file any challenge to that allowance for many months thereafter. No other person who was entitled to notice, but who did not receive it until after allowance, ever challenged the allowance of the will. While appellant-grandson should have received notice sooner than he did, his belated attempt to challenge the allowance many months after receiving notice is untimely.
¶ 22. As to their challenge to the validity of the will as conditional, appellants contend that the civil division erred in finding their challenge to be an impermissible collateral attack on the probate division’s February 2013 order allowing the will because the effect of declaring the will to be conditional would be to disallow it, if the condition were not met. Appellants contend that their argument relates to construction, not allowance, and therefore the court erred in concluding it was without jurisdiction. We agree and therefore reverse and remand the superior court decision that it could not reach this issue. 9 ¶ 23. The issue of what precisely constitutes a conditional or contingent will, and how and when the issue should be raised, appears to be a matter of first impression in Vermont.5 There is a uniform consensus among states, however, that the concept of a will being conditioned on the happening of an event is permissible. See, e.g., In re Taylor’s Estate, 259 P.2d 1014, 1017 (1953) (stating that California statutorily authorizes conditional wills); Damon v. Damon, 90 Mass. 192, 194 (1864) (“There seems to be no reason upon principle why an instrument cannot be made which is to take effect as a will only on the happening of a contingency named in it.”); McMerriman v. Schiel, 140 N.E. 600, 601 (Ohio 1932) (“Conditional and contingent wills are fully recognized in the American and English cases.”); In re Estate of Crowell, 154 S.W.3d 556, 560 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (recognizing validity of conditional wills) (citing In re Estate of Franklin, E2000-02687-COA-R3-CV, 2001 WL 896635 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2001)); Bagnall v. Bagnall, 225 S.W.2d 401, 402 (Tex. 1949) (stating that conditional wills have been recognized by Texas courts). The parties present no argument to the contrary, and we can discern no principled reason why conditional wills would not be permissible in Vermont. Therefore, we hold that in Vermont, a will may be made contingent on the happening of a condition named therein so that the failure of the condition to occur means there is no will. ¶ 24. Although the parties agree to the propriety of conditional wills as instruments, they dispute when a court should determine whether a will is conditional. Appellants argue the matter should be determined following allowance to probate, while appellee contends that because a will made conditional on an event that never occurs is “inoperative and void,” the matter is properly considered at the allowance stage. 5 Although the cases discussing this concept use “conditional will” and “contingent will” interchangeably and without distinction, for ease of reference, we exclusively use the term “conditional will.” 10 ¶ 25. To determine whether the conditional language is a statement of the motive or inducement for making the will, or whether the testator clearly intended the instrument to be contingent on a condition precedent to the operation of the will, the court must undertake construction of the testator’s intent. See In re Houghton’s Estate, 118 Vt. 228, 232, 105 A.2d 257, 259 (1954) (stating objective of construction “is to ascertain the intention of the testator”). The probate of a will, however, is a limited proceeding in “form and substance upon the will itself to determine its validity” and “the status of the instrument, whether it is or is not the will of the testator.” Everett, 103 Vt. at 492, 156 A. at 395; see also Eaton v. Brown, 193 U.S. 411, 413 (1904) (“[L]ogically the only question upon the probate was the factum of the instrument”); Estate of Perry, 2012 VT 9, ¶ 9 (finding an order of the probate division an appealable final order as to the will’s validity). The purpose of this limitation is obvious: if the document is not in fact the last will and testament of the decedent, there is nothing to probate, and if the document has been tainted by an improper influence, it is ineffective for that purpose. ¶ 26. The point at which an interested party must raise the matter of whether an instrument is subject to a condition that was not fulfilled is controlled by 14 V.S.A. § 102, which provides that “[t]he allowance of a will of real or personal estate shall be conclusive as to its due execution.” Discussing this statute in In re Peck’s Estate, 80 Vt. 469, 481, 68 A. 433, 435-36 (1908), this Court found that the language controls what can be raised at the allowance stage, impliedly limiting challenges to those of “due execution.” Due execution, in turn, requires conformity with the statutory formalities in 14 V.S.A. § 5, including that the will be “in writing and signed by the testator . . . and attested and subscribed by two or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other.” Thus, the issues before the probate division at the allowance stage are very narrow. Whether or not a will is conditional and whether the condition 11 is fulfilled are entirely separate matters from whether the will was duly executed. See Peck, 80 Vt. at 481, 68 A. at 436 (“[A]ny question whether [the surviving spouse] shall take under the will . . . is involved in the decree of distribution, and should be determined in connection therewith,” rather than at the allowance stage). Because a determination of whether a will is conditional necessarily involves construction of the will, under the terms of § 102, that determination must be made subsequent to its allowance. Accordingly, appellants’ challenge to the conditional nature of the will following allowance was timely and does not constitute a collateral attack on the allowance of the will.