Green v. Nassif

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Carlton M. Green, Personal Representative of the Estate of Walter L. Green v. Helen G. Nassif, No. 11, September Term 2007. APPEAL AND ERROR - GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL - MOOTNESS - APPEAL FROM ORDER VACATING WRIT OF PROHIBITION ISSUED BY A CIRCUIT COURT TO AN ORPHANS' COURT IS MOOT WHERE, SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER VACATING THE WRIT, THE CIRCUIT COURT, IN A DIFFERENT ACTION, REVERSES AND STAYS THE RELEVANT DECISION OF THE ORPHANS' COURT GIVING RISE TO THE ACTION INVOLVING THE WRIT OF PROHIBITION, THUS PLACING APPELLANT IN THE SAME POSITION AS IF THE WRIT HAD NOT BEEN VACATED. Circuit Co urt for Prince George 's County Case No. CAE 06-23262 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 11 September Term, 2007 CARLTON M. GREEN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF WALTER L. GREEN v. HELE N G. NA SSIF Bell, C.J. Raker Harrell Battaglia Greene Wilner, Alan M. (Retired, specially assigned) Cathell, Dale R. (Retired, specially assigned), JJ. Opinion by Harrell, J. Filed: October 15, 2007 This case comes before the Court from a Writ of Certiorari issued to the Court of Special Appeals before it could decide the timely appeal of Carlton M. Green, App ellant, from an Order of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County vacating a Writ of Prohibition previously issued by the C ircuit Cou rt to th e Or phans' C ourt for P rince Ge orge 's County. We heard oral argument on 11 September 2007. At that time, counsel for the parties informed this Court of a number of related proceedings initiated in the Circuit Court sub sequent to vacation of the Writ of Prohibition that is the focus of the instant appeal. As a result of the information supplied b y the parties' counsel at oral argument and verification of the information of record in the Circuit Court in the related litigation, we shall dismiss the instant appea l as moo t. I. Walter L. Green died on 9 M arch 199 3. His estate, valued in the millions of dollars, has been pending for more than 14 years in the Orp hans' Co urt for Pr ince Geo rge's Cou nty. On 23 Octo ber 2006 , the Orpha ns' Court co nducted a hearing on the petition of Appellee Helen G. Nassif, Decedent's surviving widow, regarding the election of her statutory share. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Orphans' Court, sua spon te, announced that another hearing would be held regarding the removal of Carlton M. Green, Decedent's son and Appellant here, as Personal Representative of the estate.1 In response, Appellant filed a Petition for a Writ of Prohibition in the Circuit Court on Friday, 27 October 2006, seeking 1 M ARYLAND C ODE A NN. (1974, 2001 R EPL. V OL.), E ST. & T RUSTS § 6-306 (c) provides that a "hearing shall be conducted by the court prior to the removal of a person al repre sentativ e. The h earing m ay be held on the m otion o f the co urt . . . ." to preclude the removal hearing from being held . Appellan t did not nam e any defen dants in the Petition, yet as serte d sev eral a llega tions of b ias again st him by two of the three judges of the Orphans' Court. There is nothing in the record to indicate that any persons or entities were notified of the filing of, or served with, the Petition. The Circuit Court took no action on the Petition initially. On Monday, 30 October 2006, Appellant presented the Petition, ex parte, to a judge of the Circuit Court. The judge issued the requested Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the Orphans' Court from "cond ucting f urther p roceed ings in [ this case ] . . . pending further order from [the Circuit Court]." No person or entity implicated in the allegations of the Petition, App ellee, App ellee's counse l, the Orpha ns' Court, an y of its judges, or the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland2 appear to have been given notice of the filing o f the Petition o r the ex parte proceedin g leading to the issuanc e of the W rit. On the afternoon of 30 October 2006, the Writ of Prohibition was served on App ellee 's counsel. The following day, Appellee responded with a Motion to Vacate the Writ of Prohibition. A different judge of the Circuit Court than the one who issued the Writ of Prohibition signed, on 31 Octo ber 2006 , an Order to Vacate Issuance o f Writ of Prohibition. Only Appellee was represented at the brief he aring resulting in the Ord er vacating the Writ. No other persons were present. On 9 November 2006, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, ostensibly challenging the 31 October 2006 Order vacating 2 The Office of the Attorney General serves as the legal representative and advisor of mo st units o f the sta te gove rnmen t, includi ng the O rphans ' Court. M D. C ODE A NN. (1984, 2004 R EPL. V OL.), S TATE G OV'T, § 6-106. -2- the Writ. We issued a w rit of certiorari to consider w hether the C ircuit Court pro perly could issue the original Writ of Prohibition to the Orphans' Court and, if necessary, whether the Writ w as vaca ted pro perly. At oral argument befo re this Court, counsel for Appellant and Appellee advised us of relevant facts occurring after vacatio n of the W rit, previously unk nown to the Court. After the Writ of Prohibition was vacated, the estate proceeding continued in the Orp hans' Cou rt. On 2 Novem ber 2006, the Orp hans' Court held an adversarial hearing regarding the transmission of issues to the Circuit Court and removal of Appellant as Personal Representative. The Orphans' Court denied Appellant's petition to transmit issues to the Circuit Court for trial. The portion of the hearing regarding the removal of Appellant as Personal Representative was conducted over several days, concluding on 15 November 2006. On 30 November 2006, the Orphans' Court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and an Order removing Appellant as Personal Representative and naming Nanette K. Miller as successor Personal Representative. Appellant filed a notice of appeal with the Circuit Court on 26 December 2006 from the Orphans' Court's 30 November 2006 Order.3 This appeal, Case No. CAL 07- 3 A party may appeal a final order of the orphans' court to the circuit court and receive a de no vo hea ring. M D. C ODE A NN. (1974, 2006 R EPL. V OL.), C TS. & J UD. P ROC. § 12-502. The circuit court treats the matter as if there had never been a prior hearing or judgm ent in the orphan s' court. Id. The removal of a Personal Representative constitutes an app ealable final or der. "It has b een he ld that an appea l may be ta ken fro m an o rder . . . revoking letters." Banashak v. Wittstadt, 167 Md. App. 627, 658, 893 A.2d 1236, 1253 (contin ued...) -3- 00997 in the Circuit Court, raised several issues, including challenges to the removal of Appellant as Personal Representative and the denial of A ppellant's requ est to transmit issues to the Circuit Court for trial. In an O rder dated 8 Februa ry 2007, the C ircuit Court directed that Appellant's removal as Personal Representative be stayed pending resolution of the merits of that appeal an d Appe llant be allow ed to contin ue in that cap acity, but with his powers expressly limited to those of a Special Adm inistrator.4 On 8 M ay 2007, the C ircuit Court, reaching the merits, reversed the Order of the Orphans' Court denying Appellant the transmission of issues to the Circuit Court. In that same Order, the Circuit Court directed, without further qualification or limitation, that Appellant remain as Personal Representative of the estate un til further orde r of the Circ uit Court. The Orphans' Court directive appointing Nanette K. Miller as successor Personal Representative was stayed by the Circuit Court Order. As a result, Appellant remains the Personal Representative of the estate at this time, apparently authorized to act with the full authority granted to a Personal Representative.5 3 (...continued) (2006); see Kerby v. Peters, 172 Md. 1, 190 A. 511 (1937) (hearing appeal of order revoking letters of adm inistration of an estate). 4 Although a Personal Representative generally has broad powers, the powers of a Special Administrator are limited to preserving and maintaining estate property, unless those p owers are exp anded by court o rder. Compare M D. C ODE A NN. (1974, 2001 R EPL. V OL.), E ST. & T RUSTS § 6-403 with M D. C ODE A NN., E ST. & T RUSTS § 7-40 1. For example , a Special A dministrator c annot distribu te property with out court ap proval; how ever , a Pe rson al Re pres enta tive p osse sses such auth ority. M D. C ODE A NN., E ST. & T RUSTS §§ 6-403, 7-401 . 5 There may be some question whether the Circuit Court's 8 May 2007 Order placed (contin ued...) -4- II. As a result of these newly revealed facts, we must determine whether the case pending before this Court, reg arding the iss uance of the Writ of Prohibition and its vaca tion, is moot. Because we conclude that the case is moot, w e shall dismis s this appea l.6 "A case is moot when there is no longer any existing controversy between the parties at the time that the case is before the court, or when the court can no longer fashion an effective remedy." In re Kaela C., 394 Md. 432, 452, 906 A.2d 91 5, 927 (2006). Appellant, as a result of his subsequent appeal (CAL 07-00997) to the Circuit Court, appears now to be in place as the Personal Representative of the estate and is litigating further in the Circuit Court the various disputes he has with the Orphans' Court, at least two of its judges, and Appellee. An opinion disposing of the issues in the instant appeal would be a mere advisory opinion, and, at that, one based on a less than fully or adversarially developed factual record where bald allegations of bias against certain Orphans' Co urt judges ab ound. "T his Court does not give advisory opinions; thus, we generally dismiss moot actions without a decision on the merits." Dep't of Human 5 (...continued) Appellant back in the position as the fully authorized Personal Representative or continued to restrict his authority to that of a Special Administrator. It appears to us from the sequence of the proceedings in the Circuit Court appeal and language of the successive Orders en tered by it that the C ircuit Court in tended to e nable Ap pellant to exercise the full powers of a Personal Representative; however, we do not decide that now, leaving to the parties to pursue, if they wish, that question in the related proceedings. 6 Maryland Rule 8-6 02 provides that "[o]n m otion or its own initiative, the Court may dism iss an ap peal [b ecause ] . . . the cas e has be come moot." -5- Res., Child Ca re Adm in. v. Roth, 398 Md. 137, 143, 919 A.2d 12 17, 1221 (2007); see State v. Peterson, 315 Md. 73, 82, 553 A.2d 672, 677 (1989); In re Rosa A. Riddlemoser, 317 Md. 496, 502, 506, 564 A .2d 812, 815 (198 9). In addition, Appellant's main purpose in seeking the Writ of Prohibition appears to have been to avoid a hearing in the O rphans' Court regarding h is removal. That hearing has been held. After the hearing was held, the Writ of Prohibition lost any remed ial benefit to A ppellant. We are without an effective remedy in the instant appeal to prevent a hearing that has been held.7 This Court, on rare occasions, has dec ided m oot cas es. See, e.g ., Coburn v. Coburn, 342 Md. 244, 674 A.2d 379 (1996) (exercising discretion to decide a moot case because the limited duration of protective orde rs may cause an iss ue to escap e judicial revie w); Peterson, 315 Md. 73, 553 A.2d 672 (1989) (deciding a moot case because of the large number of cases that would be affected by the outcome). We "may address the merits of a moot case if we are convinced that the case presents unresolved issues in matters of importan t public concern that, if decided , will establish a rule for future conduct." Coburn, 342 Md. at 250, 674 A.2d at 954; see Lloyd v. Bd. of Supervisors of Elections, 206 Md. 36, 43, 111 A.2d 379, 382 (1954) ("[I]f the pu blic interest clea rly will be hurt if the question is not immediately decided, if the matter involved is likely to recur frequently, and its recurrence will involve a 7 Appellant's argument that the case is not moot because the reversal of the order vaca ting the w rit would elim inate "app eals sittin g in the C ircuit Co urt for Pr ince Geo rge's County that should not be there . . ." is not persuasive, particularly with the thin factual record made in the present case. -6- relationship between government and its citizens, or a duty of government, and upon any recurrence, the same difficulty which prevented the appeal at hand from being heard in time is likely again to prevent a decision, then the Court may find justification for deciding the issues raised by a question which has become moot, particularly if all these factors concur with sufficient weight."). "Before deciding the merits of a moot case, we must be persuaded that there exists an 'urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern' w hich 'is both imperative and manifest.'" Hagerstown Reprod uctive He alth Services v. Fritz, 295 Md. 268, 272, 454 A.2d 846, 848 (1983) (quoting State v. Ficker, 266 Md. 5 00, 507 , 295 A .2d 231 , 235 (1 972)). We are not persuaded that the present case is such a situation where we should decide a moot ca se. This case does not p resent an issu e of overa rching pu blic importance, despite its significance to the litigants. Nor is the apparent basis for Appellant's claims likely to evade our review. The removal of Appellant as Personal Representative and appointment of Nanette K. Miller as successor Personal Representative have been stayed in the Circuit Court, pending decisions in related litigation.8 If the underlying allegations of bias and o ther improp rieties by certain Orphans' Court judges are to reach us again from the subsequent proceedings initiated in the Circuit Court, it hopefully will be supported by a more fully developed factual and legal 8 There are several cases pending in the Circuit Court related to the estate and these same parties (including Case Nos. CAL 07-07916, CAL 07-00997, CAL 06-25043, CAL 06-14 865, C AL 0 6-121 44, CA L 06-1 4909, C AL 0 6-063 97). -7- record. APPEAL DISMISSED; COSTS TO BE DIVIDED EQUALLY BETWEEN APPELLANT AND APPELLEE. -8-

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.