T FRANK LAW, PLLC

View Original

Timothy F. Robertson on Probate Court Objections as Published in the Boston Bar Journal

Timothy F. Robertson, Esq.

In the Boston Bar Journal’s Fall 2019 (Vol. 63 #4,) issue, T FRANK LAW’s attorney Timothy F. Robertson, in collaboration with Attorney Joseph N. Schneiderman, share their Practice Tips “Should it Stay or Should it Go?: Post-MUPC Probate Court Objections in the Wake of Leighton and Cusack”

An excerpt:

“Cusack raises an important practical question about how to redress problems during distribution. On the one hand, procedurally, a contempt action does have benefits. A decree settling an estate certainly constitutes a court order for purposes of contempt. The Probate and Family Court also deals with contempt every day. Contempt actions also proceed under the same docket without a separate filing fee, and a successful litigant may recover their attorney’s fees.

Substantively however, a contempt action after distribution may not provide an ideal solution. Contempt has to be proven by clear and convincing evidence and not every violation of a court order constitutes a contempt. Indeed, ambiguous court orders do not lend themselves to contempts. See e.g. Hoort v. Hoort, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 363, 365 (2014). A contempt action may deleteriously prolong and reopen a seemingly settled estate, and thwart the spirit of speedy settlement under the MUPC-or the purpose of former Rule 16 to screen out frivolous contests.”

Read the full article here, or contact Timothy F. Robertson (tim@tfranklaw.com) for more information.