Preview:

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________ Rockingham County Probate Court Nos. 2008-756 2009-066 Rockingham No. 2009-026 IN RE ESTATE OF KATHLEEN ANTONIA PORTER IN RE CHARLES BALOK & a. Submitted: July 7, 2009 Opinion Issued: August 5, 2009 LL Hansen Legal Professional Association, of Portsmouth (Lorraine L. Hansen on the brief), for Charles Balok. Law Office of Joshua L. Gordon, of Concord (Joshua L. Gordon on the brief), for the Estate of Kathleen Porter. PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, Charles Balok challenges orders of the Rockingham County Probate Court (Hurd, J.) and the Superior Court (Lewis, J.) relative to a probate court-approved settlement of Balok's claim against the Estate of Kathleen Antonia Porter (estate). He argues that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to terminate a life estate in real property granted to him pursuant to the terms of the settlement, and to issue certain orders after he had perfected an appeal to the superior court pursuant to RSA 547:11-d (2007). We affirm.

After the death of Kathleen Antonia Porter, Balok sought an intestate share of her estate, see RSA 561:1 (2007), claiming to have been her common law spouse, see RSA 457:39 (2004). On August 1, 2006, the probate court approved a settlement of that claim, under which the estate agreed to transfer a life interest in certain property to Balok, and Balok agreed to reimburse the estate for prior mortgage, insurance and tax payments relative to the property, and to carry such costs in the future. The agreement provided that Balok's interest would terminate if he failed to make such payments. On December 5, 2006, the estate filed a petition in the probate court seeking to terminate the life estate, claiming that Balok had not made required payments under the agreement. Balok failed to object, and the probate court granted the petition by summary order on January 17, 2007. On February 13, 2007, Balok filed a pro se petition, which the probate court treated as an untimely motion for reconsideration. The probate court denied the motion for reconsideration on November 2, 2007, addressing the parties' arguments on the merits. Balok appealed to the superior court pursuant to RSA 547:11-d. On May 15, 2008, the superior court dismissed the RSA 547:11-d appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but allowed Balok to assert other claims against the estate. The estate then requested that the probate court enforce its earlier orders and require Balok to vacate the property. Balok countered that the probate court lacked jurisdiction because he was challenging the dismissal of the RSA 547:11-d appeal, and because, in any event, the court lacked jurisdiction over the property. On September 19, 2008, the probate court vacated its order of January 17, 2007, amended its order of November 2, 2007, to grant Balok's February 13, 2007 motion for reconsideration, and ordered him to file a corporate surety or cash bond in the amount of $15,000. Balok appealed the probate court's September 19, 2008 order to this court, arguing that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to take any action after he had perfected his RSA 547:11-d appeal and while he pursued an interlocutory appeal of the superior court's May 15, 2008 dismissal. Separately, he filed an interlocutory appeal from the dismissal of the RSA 547:11-d appeal. On December 31, 2008, the probate court again terminated the life estate because Balok had not filed the bond required by its September 19, 2008 order, and Balok filed a third appeal. By order dated February 26, 2009, we accepted the interlocutory appeal, consolidated all three appeals, and granted a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely, but only to the extent that Balok sought to challenge the probate court's initial January 17, 2007 order. We did not preclude Balok from challenging the merits of the superior court's dismissal of his RSA 547:11-d

2

appeal, or of any of the other probate court orders from which he appealed. See Germain v. Germain, 137 N.H. 82, 84-85 (1993) (while untimely motion for reconsideration did not stay the running of the appeal period under Supreme Court Rule 7, appeal was timely as to the order denying the untimely motion). On appeal, Balok argues that the probate court was without jurisdiction because the property was not subject to a license to sell under RSA 559:1 (2007). He argues further that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to issue any order after he had perfected his RSA 547:11-d appeal, and that all orders issued by the probate court after that appeal was perfected are void. Balok has not, however, briefed whether the superior court erred by dismissing the RSA 547:11-d appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the superior court's May 15, 2008 dismissal, and limit our analysis to his arguments concerning the subject matter jurisdiction of the probate court. See State v. Harper, 126 N.H. 815, 817 (1985) (issues raised in interlocutory appeal but not briefed are waived). We address first Balok's argument that the probate court lacked jurisdiction because the property was not subject to a license to sell under RSA 559:1. Although we have previously held that "[i]n the absence of the necessity of the executor seeking a license to sell the real estate, the probate court has no jurisdiction of the real estate of a decedent," Fleming v. Aiken, 114 N.H. 687, 690 (1974); see In re Estate of O'Dwyer, 135 N.H. 323, 324-25 (1992), the legislature effectively expanded the probate court's jurisdiction to encompass disputes concerning the real estate of a decedent through the Omnibus Justice Act of 1993, see Petition of CIGNA Healthcare, 146 N.H. 683, 689 (2001). Today, "the probate court has jurisdiction to resolve issues involving real estate of the decedent if the property is `in' the estate of the decedent." 10 C. DeGrandpre & W. Zorn, New Hampshire Practice, Probate and Administration of Estates, Trusts & Guardianships

Download 2008-756, 2009-066, 2009-026, IN RE ESTATE OF KATHLEEN ANTONIA PORTER; IN RE CHA

New Hampshire Law