STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT YORK, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO: CV711,-271 u rto- '-(OfZ -01 njz_ orz.. JONATHAN S. HALL, individually and in his capacity as co-executor of the Estate of Harry A. Hall, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY H. HALL and BONNIE FRASER HALL,
Defendants,
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
This case is before the court on the defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint pursuant to the Maine Rules of Civil Procedures 12(b)(1) and (6).
BACKGROUND
Jonathan Hall ("Plaintiff") and Jeffrey and Bonnie Hall ("Defendants") are
siblings and the natural children of Harry A Hall and Gloria P. Hall, both
deceased. The Plaintiff is also co-executor1 of the estate of his late father under
Harry A. Hall's 1993 Will ("Harry's 1993 Will"). Under Harry's 1993 Will, the
Plaintiff and his sister, Jennifer Hall, were named beneficiaries and the
Defendants were disinherited. Harry's 1993 Will left the family horne at 10
Patriots Drive in Lexington, Massachusetts to Gloria Hall to pay for her care. At
the time of Harry Hall's death, Gloria Hall was a resident of Huntington
Common, a nursing facility located in Kennebunk, Maine. However, the
1 Eastern Bank is the disinterested co-executor.
1 contents of the home were left to the Plaintiff and his sister, Jennifer, as
beneficiaries. 2
Gloria Hall also had a will executed in 1993 ("Gloria's 1993 Will"). This
will named the Plaintiff, Jennifer Hall, and Bonnie Fraser Hall as beneficiaries but
also disinherited Defendant Jeffrey Hall. After Gloria Hall's passing on
November 27,2008, the Defendants produced a will executed in 2004 ("2004
Will"). Under the 2004 Will, the Defendants are named co-executors and the
Plaintiff and Jennifer Hall are disinherited. The validity of the 2004 Will is
currently the subject of litigation pending in the Cumberland County Probate
Court.
The Plaintiff alleges that shortly after Gloria Hall's death, on December 1,
2008, the Defendants gained access to her room at Huntington Common and
removed personal property belonging to the Plaintiff, Jennifer Hall, and the
Estate of Harry A. Hall III, including paintings and other artwork. Also, on
December 5, 2008, the Defendants allegedly entered the property at Patriots
Drive, after telling the Lexington Police Department that they were duly
appointed co-executors of Gloria Hall's estate under the 2004 Will and were
intending to "winterize" the property. The Plaintiff also alleges that the
Defendants forced entry into the property, damaged the contents of the property
and removed articles of personal property and fixtures belonging to the Plaintiff,
Jennifer Hall, and the Estate of Harry A. Hall, III, exceeding $25,000 in value.
The Plaintiff, in his Second Amended Complaint, brings thirteen counts
against the Defendants alleging that their conduct in causing the execution of the
2004 Will and their conduct both before after the death of their mother was
2 At the time of Harry A. Hall's death, he and Gloria Hall were divorced.
2 tortious. The Defendants have answered the Second Amended Complaint and
have filed this Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff has also filed a substantially
similar Complaint against the Defendants in the Middlesex County Superior
Court in Massachusetts.
DISCUSSION
The Defendants motion is brought pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1),
arguing that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, 12(b)(6), arguing that the
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and under
the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
A. Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss
Whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law and
the court does not draw any favorable inferences in favor of the Plaintiff. Tomer
v. Me. Human Rights Comm'n, 2008 ME 190, CJ[ 9, 962 A.2d 335. On the other hand,
when considering a motion under 12(b)(6), which is designed to test the
sufficiency of the complaint, the court must view the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff and only dismiss the case if it is clear that the plaintiff
cannot recover under any theory. Brewer v. Hagemann, 2001 ME 27, CJ[ 4, 771 A.2d
1030.
Under 18-A M.R.S. § 3-105, the Probate Court has exclusive jurisdiction
over determining how a decedent's estate is administered, expended, and
distributed. However, the Probate Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the
Superior Court over any other action concerning an estate.
The Defendants argue that the York County Superior Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction in this case because the Maine Probate Court has exclusive
jurisdiction to determine the validity of the 2004 Will, under 18-A M.R.S. §3-105.
3 That is, that Counts I, II, III, N, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX are based on the premise
that the 2004 Will is not valid and, because the Superior Court cannot adjudicate
that question, it cannot adjudicate these claims either. Alternatively, the
Defendants argue that, because the Plaintiff has not proven the predicate for his
claims (i.e. that the 2004 Will is invalid) he has failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
The Plaintiff counters, arguing that the nature of these counts does not
depend on an adjudication of the 2004 Will. Rather, the Plaintiff may be able to
prove claims such as fraud, conversion, misrepresentation, and trespass without
having to prove that the 2004 Will is invalid. See Plimpton v. Gerrard, 668 A.2d
882 (Me. 1995) (holding that where the law provided for concurrent jurisdiction
on the plaintiff's tort-based theories, there is no basis for the law to prefer one
forum to the other). For example, the statements the Defendants allegedly made
to the Lexington Police Department that they were duly appointed co-executors
of the estate could be found to be a misrepresentation even if the 2004 Will is
found to be valid and some of the items allegedly removed from the Lexington
property manifestly belong to the Plaintiff, thus supporting a claim for
conversion regardless of the validity of the 2004 Will.
The court finds that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss must fail under
the Rule 12 arguments. The Superior Court clearly has concurrent jurisdiction
over tort claims related to an estate that do not requiring a finding as to the
validity of a will. The numerous claims that the Plaintiff has brought each have a
factual basis not predicated on the invalidity of the 2004 Will. In fact, the
Defendants do not even argue that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over Counts X, XI, XII, or XIII or that those counts fail to state a claim. However,
4 a final judgment of the Probate Court upholding the validity of the 2004 Will
could dispose of the claims based on the Defendants entry into and removal of
items from Gloria Hall's nursing home room.
At oral argument, as an alternative to dismissal, the Defendants'
requested a stay of this case pending the outcome of the Probate Court case. The
court recognizes that the outcome of the will contest does have an effect on the
scope of this case and that not all claims may be disposed of at trial without a
finding regarding the validity of the will. However, also recognizing that there is
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT YORK, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO: CV711,-271 u rto- '-(OfZ -01 njz_ orz.. JONATHAN S. HALL, individually and in his capacity as co-executor of the Estate of Harry A. Hall, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY H. HALL and BONNIE FRASER HALL,
Defendants,
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
This case is before the court on the defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint pursuant to the Maine Rules of Civil Procedures 12(b)(1) and (6).
BACKGROUND
Jonathan Hall ("Plaintiff") and Jeffrey and Bonnie Hall ("Defendants") are
siblings and the natural children of Harry A Hall and Gloria P. Hall, both
deceased. The Plaintiff is also co-executor1 of the estate of his late father under
Harry A. Hall's 1993 Will ("Harry's 1993 Will"). Under Harry's 1993 Will, the
Plaintiff and his sister, Jennifer Hall, were named beneficiaries and the
Defendants were disinherited. Harry's 1993 Will left the family horne at 10
Patriots Drive in Lexington, Massachusetts to Gloria Hall to pay for her care. At
the time of Harry Hall's death, Gloria Hall was a resident of Huntington
Common, a nursing facility located in Kennebunk, Maine. However, the
1 Eastern Bank is the disinterested co-executor.
1 contents of the home were left to the Plaintiff and his sister, Jennifer, as
beneficiaries. 2
Gloria Hall also had a will executed in 1993 ("Gloria's 1993 Will"). This
will named the Plaintiff, Jennifer Hall, and Bonnie Fraser Hall as beneficiaries but
also disinherited Defendant Jeffrey Hall. After Gloria Hall's passing on
November 27,2008, the Defendants produced a will executed in 2004 ("2004
Will"). Under the 2004 Will, the Defendants are named co-executors and the
Plaintiff and Jennifer Hall are disinherited. The validity of the 2004 Will is
currently the subject of litigation pending in the Cumberland County Probate
Court.
The Plaintiff alleges that shortly after Gloria Hall's death, on December 1,
2008, the Defendants gained access to her room at Huntington Common and
removed personal property belonging to the Plaintiff, Jennifer Hall, and the
Estate of Harry A. Hall III, including paintings and other artwork. Also, on
December 5, 2008, the Defendants allegedly entered the property at Patriots
Drive, after telling the Lexington Police Department that they were duly
appointed co-executors of Gloria Hall's estate under the 2004 Will and were
intending to "winterize" the property. The Plaintiff also alleges that the
Defendants forced entry into the property, damaged the contents of the property
and removed articles of personal property and fixtures belonging to the Plaintiff,
Jennifer Hall, and the Estate of Harry A. Hall, III, exceeding $25,000 in value.
The Plaintiff, in his Second Amended Complaint, brings thirteen counts
against the Defendants alleging that their conduct in causing the execution of the
2004 Will and their conduct both before after the death of their mother was
2 At the time of Harry A. Hall's death, he and Gloria Hall were divorced.
2 tortious. The Defendants have answered the Second Amended Complaint and
have filed this Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff has also filed a substantially
similar Complaint against the Defendants in the Middlesex County Superior
Court in Massachusetts.
DISCUSSION
The Defendants motion is brought pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1),
arguing that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, 12(b)(6), arguing that the
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and under
the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
A. Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss
Whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law and
the court does not draw any favorable inferences in favor of the Plaintiff. Tomer
v. Me. Human Rights Comm'n, 2008 ME 190, CJ[ 9, 962 A.2d 335. On the other hand,
when considering a motion under 12(b)(6), which is designed to test the
sufficiency of the complaint, the court must view the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff and only dismiss the case if it is clear that the plaintiff
cannot recover under any theory. Brewer v. Hagemann, 2001 ME 27, CJ[ 4, 771 A.2d
1030.
Under 18-A M.R.S. § 3-105, the Probate Court has exclusive jurisdiction
over determining how a decedent's estate is administered, expended, and
distributed. However, the Probate Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the
Superior Court over any other action concerning an estate.
The Defendants argue that the York County Superior Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction in this case because the Maine Probate Court has exclusive
jurisdiction to determine the validity of the 2004 Will, under 18-A M.R.S. §3-105.
3 That is, that Counts I, II, III, N, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX are based on the premise
that the 2004 Will is not valid and, because the Superior Court cannot adjudicate
that question, it cannot adjudicate these claims either. Alternatively, the
Defendants argue that, because the Plaintiff has not proven the predicate for his
claims (i.e. that the 2004 Will is invalid) he has failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
The Plaintiff counters, arguing that the nature of these counts does not
depend on an adjudication of the 2004 Will. Rather, the Plaintiff may be able to
prove claims such as fraud, conversion, misrepresentation, and trespass without
having to prove that the 2004 Will is invalid. See Plimpton v. Gerrard, 668 A.2d
882 (Me. 1995) (holding that where the law provided for concurrent jurisdiction
on the plaintiff's tort-based theories, there is no basis for the law to prefer one
forum to the other). For example, the statements the Defendants allegedly made
to the Lexington Police Department that they were duly appointed co-executors
of the estate could be found to be a misrepresentation even if the 2004 Will is
found to be valid and some of the items allegedly removed from the Lexington
property manifestly belong to the Plaintiff, thus supporting a claim for
conversion regardless of the validity of the 2004 Will.
The court finds that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss must fail under
the Rule 12 arguments. The Superior Court clearly has concurrent jurisdiction
over tort claims related to an estate that do not requiring a finding as to the
validity of a will. The numerous claims that the Plaintiff has brought each have a
factual basis not predicated on the invalidity of the 2004 Will. In fact, the
Defendants do not even argue that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over Counts X, XI, XII, or XIII or that those counts fail to state a claim. However,
4 a final judgment of the Probate Court upholding the validity of the 2004 Will
could dispose of the claims based on the Defendants entry into and removal of
items from Gloria Hall's nursing home room.
At oral argument, as an alternative to dismissal, the Defendants'
requested a stay of this case pending the outcome of the Probate Court case. The
court recognizes that the outcome of the will contest does have an effect on the
scope of this case and that not all claims may be disposed of at trial without a
finding regarding the validity of the will. However, also recognizing that there is
no exact timetable for that event and that portion of the claims related to the
validity of the 2004 Will is small, this court does not find a sufficient basis on
which to issue a stay.
B. Forum Non Conveniens
The doctrine of forum non conveniens does not present a question of
jurisdiction. Rather, it is a doctrine that allows the court to dismiss a case,
despite the plaintiff having established jurisdiction and proper venue, if the court
finds that dismissal "will further the ends of justice and promote convenience of
the suit for all parties." MacLeod v. MacLeod, 383 A.2d 39, 41 (Me. 1978). As the
Law Court stated in MacLeod, "a nonresident plaintiff in a transitory action is
usually entitled to have his complaint heard and resolved by the forum of his
choice." Id. at 42. Therefore, an action will only be dismissed if the "ends of
justice strongly militate in favor of relegating the plaintiff to an alternative
forum." Id. The Supreme Court of the United States has identified several
factors for courts to consider in applying the doctrine. Those factors include, the
private interest of the plaintiff, the relative ease of access to sources of proo( the
cost and availability of compulsory process in obtaining witnesses, a view of the
5 premises if appropriate, whether the forum what chosen solely to harass the
defendant, and whether the forum has some tangible or intangible connection to
the litigation. Id. Of utmost importance is whether an alternative forum exists.
The court finds that Maine is the most convenient forum in which to bring
this case for the following reasons:
• The Plaintiff, a non-resident, has chosen Maine to adjudicate these claims; • Defendant Bonnie Hall is a resident of Kennebunk and Defendant Jeffrey Hall owns a home in Kennebunkport; • The decedent, Gloria Hall, resided in Maine for approximately six years prior to her death; • A significant portion of the tortious actions alleged took place in Maine; • Many of the expected witnesses, including Gloria Hall's doctors, are located in Maine; • All of the attorneys representing the parties in this case are Maine attorneys; and • The 2004 Will that is the subject of some of these claims is currently being probated in the Cumberland County Probate Court. Although some contacts exist in Massachusetts and the parties represent that
there is no personal jurisdiction problem with proceeding in Massachusetts, this
action is broader in scope and Maine is the most convenient forum.
The entry is
For the reasons stated above, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is
DENIED. The Defendants' oral Motion to Stay is also DENIED. However, due
to the fact that not all claims may be disposed of at trial without a finding by the
Probate Court regarding the validity of the will, decisions regarding the timing
of trial in relation to the Probate proceeding are reserved for future consideration
and briefing. The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket by
reference pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).
DATE: G,(t,~a.. John H. O'Neil, Jr. Justice, Superior Court
6 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF: DAVID S TURESKY LAW OFFICE OF DAVID S TURESKY 477 CONGRESS STREET SUITE 400 PORTLAND ME 04101-3431
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT BONNIE FRASER HALL: GREGORY MCCULLOUGH MCCULLOUGH LAW OFFICES PO BOX 910 SANFORD ME 04073
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT JEFFREY H HALL: MICHAEL O'TOOLE JAMES B SMITH WOODMAN EDMANDS DANYLIK AUSTIN ET AL POBOX468 BIDDEFORD ME 04005-0468