Background
After Mark Thomas Lupton-Smith died intestate in 2002, the Fulton County Probate Court appointed Ann Herrera as administrator of his estate. With the consent of Mark’s daughter Skyler’s guardian ad litem, the probate court authorized Herrera to sell Mark’s interests in four Atlanta Bread Company franchises as perishable property. The sales were completed.
In 2022, Skyler moved in probate court to reopen the estate and set aside the 2002 sale order, alleging that the order was void or procured by fraud and that Herrera breached fiduciary duties by arranging a below-market “sweetheart deal.” While that matter remained pending, Skyler sued Herrera and others in superior court in 2025, asserting fraud, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, declaratory-judgment claims, damages, and rescission of the franchise sales.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the superior court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Skyler’s claims against Herrera. The claims concerned the sale, distribution, and administration of estate assets—matters within the probate court’s original and exclusive jurisdiction unless probate remedies are incomplete or inadequate.
Skyler did not establish that probate remedies were inadequate. The Fulton County Probate Court could address alleged fiduciary breaches and fraud, award damages, require an accounting, impose appropriate sanctions, set aside orders obtained through fraud, and impose a constructive trust on misapplied estate assets. The fact that Skyler sought rescission did not justify superior-court intervention, particularly because she was already pursuing related relief in probate court. The court vacated the jurisdictional portion of the superior court’s order and remanded with directions to transfer Skyler’s claims against Herrera to probate court.
Key Takeaways
- Estate-administration disputes generally belong in probate court, even when framed as tort or equitable claims.
- A superior court may exercise concurrent equitable jurisdiction only when probate remedies are incomplete or inadequate.
- A probate remedy is not inadequate merely because a claim may be time-barred.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that litigants cannot move an estate dispute to superior court simply by requesting rescission or other equitable relief. Where a probate court can provide meaningful relief concerning a personal representative’s conduct and estate-property transactions, probate court remains the proper forum.