Johnson v. Estate of Wendell Johnson et al, No. 8:2011cv00546 - Document 7 (D. Md. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 4/25/11. (sat, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : CARROLL JOHNSON : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 11-0546 : ESTATE OF WENDELL JOHNSON, et al. : MEMORANDUM OPINION On February 28, 2011, Plaintiff Carroll Johnson filed a complaint in this court against Defendants Estate of Wendell Johnson ( the Estate ) and Stella Johnson, Representative for the Estate of Wendell Johnson. The complaint asserts three counts: conversion, and money owed. the Personal (ECF No. 1). breach of fiduciary duty, In substance, Plaintiff seeks recovery from the Estate of $200,000 that he feels he is due under the will of the now-deceased Wendell Johnson, as well as $200,000 in punitive damages against Stella Johnson. jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. He alleges (Id. ¶ 1). On April 8, 2011, the court issued a show cause order, as the case appeared to fall under federal diversity jurisdiction. the probate exception to The order instructed Plaintiff to explain within 14 days why his case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. any response. Plaintiff did not file As the prior show cause order explained, a federal court is obliged to dismiss a case whenever it appears the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 654 (4th Cir. 1999). citizenship misplaced. to Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, Here, Plaintiff relies on diversity of establish jurisdiction, 494 (1946). 1) that reliance is Federal courts do not have jurisdiction to probate a will or administer an estate. would but Markham v. Allen, 326 U.s. 490, Thus, federal courts may not act where to do so interfere with the probate proceedings; 2) assume general jurisdiction of the probate; or 3) assert control of property in the custody of state court. Libonati v. Ransom, 664 F.Supp.2d 519, 522 (D.Md. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). Put differently, probate courts the the probate probate or exception annulment reserves of a will to state and the administration of a decedent s estate; it also precludes federal courts from endeavoring to dispose of property that is in the custody of a state probate court. Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 311-12 (2006). As alleged, the claims here are probate matters of the purest form. Wendell Johnson s estate is currently probated in the Orphans Court for Prince George s County. No. 1-3). being (ECF Each of Plaintiff s claims amount to a demand for payment from the probated estate, and he relies upon provisions of Wendell Johnson s will to establish that entitlement. 2 Of course, in order to establish his right to payment, the court would necessarily need to interpret and confirm the validity of the will. Black s That is in some sense probating the will. Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) (defining probate See as [t]he judicial procedure by which a testamentary document is established to be a valid will ); see also Jimenez v. RodriguezPagan, 597 F.3d 18, 24 (1st Cir. 2010) ( [D]ivvying up an estate falls squarely within the probate exception. ). Because Plaintiff goes further and asks that the court actually compel payment from the estate, his suit also contravenes the Supreme Court s property admonition that is that in the federal custody courts of a may not state dispose probate of court. Marshall, 547 U.S. at 312; see also, e.g., Kennedy v. Trs. of Testamentary Trust of Will of Kennedy, 633 F.Supp.2d 77, 82 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), aff d, No. 09-3043-cv, 2010 WL 4250155 (2d Cir. Oct. 28, 2010) (finding claim fell under probate exception where it sought inheritance from a will). To be sure, some of the claims are styled as in personam claims against Stella Johnson. But while claims that seek to invoke a federal court s in personam jurisdiction generally do not violate the probate exception, that does not permit a court to grant as relief the possession of specific property that is within the jurisdiction of a probate court. Three Keys Ltd. v. SR Utility Holding Co., 540 F.3d 220, 230 n.10 (3d Cir. 2008); 3 accord Lefkowitz v. Bank of New York, 528 F.3d 102, 107 (2d Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of claims styled as personal claims against executor and law firm, where claims sought disgorgement of funds Court ). that remain[ed] under the control of the Probate The in personam claims here largely seek recovery of assets from the Estate, not against Stella Johnson personally. The sole exception is Plaintiff s illusory claim for punitive damages, which compensatory is unsupported damages unrecoverable. There against are by any Stella no true underlying Johnson in claim and personam for therefore claims that provide jurisdiction. These claims belong in Orphans Court, which has the power to conduct judicial probate, direct the conduct of a personal representative, and pass orders which may be required in the course of the administration of an estate of a decedent. Code, Est. & Trusts § 2-102. state courts generally Md. Reserving such matters to the promotes legal certainty, judicial economy, and resolution by a court expert in those matters. Turja v. Turja, 118 F.3d 1006, 1010 Consequently, this case will be dismissed. (4th Cir. A separate order will follow. /s/ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 4 1997).
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
