Opinion
16-P-886
05-05-2017
WILLIAM R. MITCHELL, v. ROY F. GELINEAU, administrator.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
In 2001, the defendant, Roy F. Gelineau, was appointed to act as the public administrator of the estate of Otis Lee Carper (the deceased). The plaintiff, William R. Mitchell, claims to be the deceased's heir. In 2004, Gelineau submitted, and a judge of the Probate and Family Court entered a judgment on, the administrator's first and final account.
In 2007, Mitchell alleges, he learned that the Secretary of State was holding "abandoned property," apparently securities, worth about $2,000 belonging to the deceased. After Gelineau did not distribute the property or resulting funds to Mitchell, Mitchell filed a petition to remove Gelineau as the estate's administrator. That petition was dismissed in June, 2010. Soon thereafter, Mitchell filed, among other things, another removal petition charging that Gelineau did not recover estate property; committed various misdeeds as estate administrator; violated various court orders and agreements; and committed a fraud on the Probate and Family Court. A judge of the Probate and Family Court entered a decree of dismissal in July, 2012.
Mitchell noticed, but did not perfect, an appeal from the Probate and Family Court's 2012 decree. About two months after this court affirmed orders denying Mitchell leave to docket the appeal late, Matter of Estate of Otis Lee Carper, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 1121 (2014), Mitchell filed the present action in the Superior Court, generally charging that Gelineau, acting as administrator, misappropriated estate funds; committed various frauds upon the Probate and Family Court; violated various court orders; breached a promise allegedly made during a hearing in connection with his petition; and was improperly appointed administrator of the deceased's estate. A judge of the Superior Court dismissed Mitchell's complaint. We affirm.
The Probate and Family Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over Mitchell's claims because they arise from Gelineau's alleged actions as the deceased's public administrator acting under the Probate and Family Court's appointment. See G. L. c. 215, § 3; Rolfe v. Atkinson, 259 Mass. 76, 77-78 (1927). Mitchell does not argue otherwise. Even were we to conclude that the Superior Court could have assumed jurisdiction had it done so in the first instance, see G. L. c. 215, § 6, the Probate and Family Court, "whose jurisdiction has been first invoked, now has acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit." MacDonald v. Gough, 327 Mass. 739, 743 (1951). Equally pertinent, we observe that Mitchell's present action amounts to little more than an attempt to collaterally attack the July, 2012, decree and avoid the consequences of his failure to perfect an appeal from that decree. Bloom v. Bloom, 337 Mass. 480, 482 (1958). The Superior Court properly declined jurisdiction.
We are also unpersuaded that the Superior Court should have transferred Mitchell's contract claim to the District Court. Like Mitchell's other claims, his contract count was properly before the Probate and Family Court as it arose, allegedly, from certain comments the administrator made during a 2010 Probate and Family Court hearing. The claim therefore properly was subject to the Probate and Family Court's exclusive jurisdiction as at least ancillary to ongoing estate administration. Police Commr. of Boston v. Municipal Ct. of the Dorchester Dist., 374 Mass. 640, 665 n.18 (1978). Bradford v. Richards, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 595, 598 (1981). As with Mitchell's other claims, the Superior Court judge properly declined jurisdiction. In light of our disposition, we need not and do not reach the parties' remaining arguments.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Vuono, Meade & Maldonado, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority. --------
/s/
Clerk Entered: May 5, 2017.