Background
Priscilla W. Allen bought a farm in Temple, New Hampshire, in 2012. Her son Peter lived there, and in 2015 Priscilla executed and recorded a deed transferring an undivided one-half interest in the property to Peter without consideration. Priscilla later died, leaving her estate equally to her four children.
David Allen, another son and an estate beneficiary, objected after the estate inventory reflected only Priscilla’s remaining one-half interest. The administrator declined to litigate the validity of the 2015 conveyance. David then filed a separate probate-court petition seeking to set aside the deed or impose a constructive trust, alleging undue influence, incapacity, unjust enrichment, and related claims. After trial, the probate court invalidated the deed based on undue influence and lack of capacity and awarded David attorney’s fees.
The Court’s Holding
The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the probate court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over David’s challenge to Priscilla’s lifetime conveyance. Although jurisdiction may be challenged at any time, including on appeal after trial, probate-court jurisdiction is limited by statute and must be narrowly construed.
David’s claims challenged an inter vivos deed and Peter’s ownership interest, rather than the will, administration, or distribution of estate assets. Any effect on the estate from undoing the deed was only tangential; the disputed half-interest was not in the estate at Priscilla’s death unless a court first set aside the conveyance. The Court therefore vacated the probate court’s order and remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition without prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- A probate court lacks jurisdiction over a separate challenge to a decedent’s lifetime property transfer when the claim is not directly connected to estate administration.
- Incidental consequences for an estate do not establish the direct connection required for probate jurisdiction.
- Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised for the first time on appeal, even after a trial.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes disputes over property held by an estate or transferred at death from challenges to lifetime conveyances. Parties seeking to undo an inter vivos deed based on incapacity or undue influence must bring the claim in a court with appropriate civil and equitable jurisdiction, even if success could later increase the estate’s assets.