[WSBAPT] Nonintervention estates; court jurisdiction to hold review hearings.

[Eric Nelsen]

Doug – That is an interesting question. I think that the jurisdiction referred to in Jones, et al., is the in rem jurisdiction over the property of the estate. I think it is reasonable to argue also that it means the court lacks personal jurisdiction over any involved party, including the PR with nonintervention powers.

However, I do think that the court retains the power, on its own motion, to reassert jurisdiction at least over the PR, and revoke letters if it is not satisfied with the response. The position of PR is after all a creation of the court, and I do not think the PR could prevent the court from revoking the letters on its own motion. So, if the PR's appointment is completely at the mercy of the court, I think the court might be able to take an intermediate step and set mandatory review hearings, even as to a PR with nonintervention powers.

See RCW 11.28.250<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=11.28&full=true#11.28.250>:
11.28.250 Revocation of letters—Causes.
Whenever the court has reason to believe that any personal representative has wasted, embezzled, or mismanaged, or is about to waste, or embezzle the property of the estate committed to his or her charge, or has committed, or is about to commit a fraud upon the estate, or is incompetent to act, or is permanently removed from the state, or has wrongfully neglected the estate, or has neglected to perform any acts as such personal representative, or for any other cause or reason which to the court appears necessary, it shall have power and authority, after notice and hearing to revoke such letters. The manner of the notice and of the service of the same and of the time of hearing shall be wholly in the discretion of the court, and if the court for any such reasons revokes such letters the powers of such personal representative shall at once cease, and it shall be the duty of the court to immediately appoint some other personal representative, as in this title provided.

See also In re Beard's Estate, 60 Wn.2d 127, 372 P.2d 530 (1962), which is in the annotations for that statute but I haven't read in full.

I don't think the grant under NPs in RCW 11.68.090<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=11.68&full=true#11.68.090> avoids this authority. But I do wonder if perhaps the authority under RCW 11.28.250 is not quite broad enough to allow routine periodic hearings.

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1320 University St
Seattle WA  98101-2837
phone 206-625-0092
fax 206-625-9040




From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Doug Schafer
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 11:57 AM
To: Solo & Small Firm WSBA Listserv; WSBA RPPT Probate & Trust Discussion Forum
Subject: [WSBAPT] Nonintervention estates; court jurisdiction to hold review hearings.

Colleagues:

Today I filed a memo asserting that the superior court had no jurisdiction to set mandatory review hearings after it had granted nonintervention powers to a  PR.  That memo, after identifying the players and the prior order, stated:

    Before the initial hearing that resulted in the order granting the PR nonintervention powers, the Court clerk’s computer system entered an Order Setting Case Schedule setting a “Mandatory Court Review Hearing” for January 8, 2016.
    In In re Estate of Jones, 152 Wn.2d 1, 9, 93 P.3d 147 (2004), the Washington State Supreme Court summarized the well-established law as follows:
    “Superior court jurisdiction over nonintervention probate is statutorily limited. In re Estate of Bobbitt, 60 Wash.App. 630, 632, 806 P.2d 254 (1991). As the court explained in Coates, once the decedent dies, the personal representative applies for an order of solvency, and the court has jurisdiction to grant or deny the order. However, once an order of solvency is entered the court loses jurisdiction. The court may regain jurisdiction only if the executor or another person with statutorily conferred authority invokes jurisdiction. Coates, 55 Wash.2d at 255–56, 347 P.2d 875 (citing In re Estate of Peabody, 169 Wash. 65, 13 P.2d 431 (1932)).” [Emphasis added.]
    Under Washington state law, as summarized by the state supreme court in Jones, a superior court loses jurisdiction over a probate estate upon entering an order of solvency, and regains jurisdiction only if a person with statutorily conferred authority invokes jurisdiction.  No person with statutory authority has invoked the Court’s jurisdiction over this Estate.  Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this Estate, and any orders that it enters without jurisdiction are void.


Does anybody know of any legal authority (as opposed to policy arguments) by which superior court can set mandatory review hearings after having granted nonintervention powers to a PR, considering our state supreme court's emphatic statement of the law in the Estate of Jones?

Thanks for your thoughtful responses.
Doug Schafer


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20160108/768f6c57/attachment.html>