The probate of estates in Massachusetts is governed by two separate sets of laws, the Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code (MUPC) and the common law, decisions by Massachusetts courts over the centuries from before the United States was an independent country. Where the laws conflict, the MUPC takes precedence. But on issues not covered by the MUPC, the common law governs.
Sometimes, it’s not clear whether the MUPC has decided an issue. This was the situation in the case of In the Matter of the Estate of Ronald Birkenfeld (Mass. App. Ct. No. 22-P-1232, Dec. 27, 2023) in which Bradley Birkenfeld challenged the appointment of his stepmother, Pamela Birkenfeld, as personal representative of his father’s estate. The question before the court was whether Bradley has the standing to object.
Setting the Stage
In 2007, Ronald Birkenfeld executed an estate plan leaving his estate in trust for the benefit of his wife, Pamela. It provided that upon Pamela’s death, the remaining funds in trust would be distributed to his three sons from a prior marriage as directed by Pamela by exercising a power of appointment. The plan named Pamela as personal representative and as trustee of the trust along with an independent trustee. The plan also disinherited Ronald’s daughter from another relationship.
Ronald passed away on Christmas Day, 2020. Bradley then immediately sued Pamela for “fraud, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference with expectancy” related to a $500,000 gift he had made to Ronald after having won a $100 million whistleblower award from the federal government. Apparently the purpose of the gift in Bradley’s mind was to pay off the mortgage on Ronald and Pamela’s home but, he claimed, the money was not used for this purpose. The suit was dismissed both at the trial court level and by the Appeals Court as either time barred or for lack of standing, depending on the claim.
Bradley also brought this case in probate court seeking to have to have his brother, Douglas, appointed as personal representative instead of Pamela. He did not challenge the will itself. The probate court dismissed his petition for lack of standing.
The Issue
The MUPC defines a category of “interested” persons that includes “heirs, devisees, children, spouses, creditors, beneficiaries, and any others having a property right in or claims against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent, ward, or protected person.” M.G.L. c.190B, §1-201. Bradley qualifies as an “interested person.”
The question, according to the Appeals Court, is “whether a person has standing to challenge the appointment of a personal representative is different from the question whether a person has standing to challenge the allowance of a will.”
The Decision
The Court explains that while §3-401 of the MUPC allows an interested person to file for the probate of an estate, §3-414 is silent on who can bring an action related to the appointment of a personal representative even though it states that interested persons should receive notice of a petition for such an appointment.
In the absence of any clear right in this regard conferred by the MUPC, the Court reverts to the “common-law requirement that a person [must] have ‘a legal interest in the decedent’s estate'” in order to have standing to challenge the appointment of a personal representative.
In this case, Bradley has no legal interest in his father’s estate because he was specifically excluded under his father’s will and his rights under his father’s trust upon Pamela’s death are subject to her discretion on how to split the remainder of the trust among Bradley and his two brothers. She can direct that Bradley receive nothing (which given this litigation, if not a prior breakdown in the relationship, she’s likely to have done). As a result, he has no legal interest in the estate or trust.
Conclusion
This case is interesting in its explanation of the different sources of law and how they interact. But it leaves one to wonder why the MUPC would require that “interested persons” receive notice and have the right to challenge the will itself, but not the right to challenge the appointment of the personal representative. Was this an oversight by the legislature (and perhaps by the Uniform Law Commission which drafted the Uniform Probate Code on which the MUPC was based)? Or is it a reasoned distinction based on the idea that if the will is accepted, those without a legal interest should not interfere with the administration of the estate?
Likely Bradley’s animosity towards Pamela is based on more than the alleged misuse of the $500,000 gift, which seems rather minor in light of Bradley’s vast wealth. But given those resources, no doubt Bradley will seek to have the Supreme Judicial Court ultimately decide the issues raised in this case.
This cases also raises questions about the Anglo-American tradition of freedom of testation, the idea that individuals should be able to do whatever they want with their property. In this case, Ronald both disinherits his daughter and potentially disinherits two of his three sons, depending on what Pamela decides about the ultimate distribution of Ronald’s trust. Other legal traditions give children more legal rights. When most wealth came from ownership of land, such property was usually passed down from generation to generation, making it more family property and less wealth created the decedent himself or herself.