Elliott v. Maryland National Bank

⁷¹ Davidson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The central question in this case concerns an application of Maryland Code (1974) § 5-207 of the Estates and Trusts Article which provides: "(a) Filing petition to caveat. — Regardless of whether a petition for probate has been filed, a veriñed petition to caveat a will may be filed at any time prior to the expiration of six months following the fírst appointment of a personal representative under a will, even if there be a subsequent judicial probate or appointment of a personal representative. If a different will is offered subsequently for probate, a petition to caveat the later offered will may be fíled at a time within the later to occur of (1) Three months after the later probate, or (2) Six months after the first appointment of a personal representative of a probated will. (b) Effect of petition. — If the petition to caveat is filed before the filing of a petition for probate, or after administrative probate, it has the effect of a request for judicial probate.

If filed after judicial probate the matter shall be reopened and a new proceeding held as if only administrative probate had previously been determined. In either case the provisions of Subtitle 4 of this title apply.” (Emphasis added.) More particularly, this case primarily involves the question whether, under the facts here, the time constraints set forth in § 5-207 (a) prohibited amendments to a timely-filed petition to caveat and, if so, whether the issues to be framed by an orphans’ court and transmitted to a court of law pursuant to § 2-105 of the Estates and Trusts Article 1 were limited to those set forth in that petition. ⁷² On 14 June 1961, Mrs. M. Gladys Iddings (testatrix) executed a Last Will and Testament (first will). Item Fourth of the first will provided in pertinent part: "FOURTH: I give, devise and bequeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of my estate and property, real, personal and mixed, unto the Trustee under said Trust Agreement dated the 14th day of June, 1961....” (Emphasis in original.) On 1 October 1970, the testatrix executed a first codicil to the first will. The first codicil to the first will provided in pertinent part: "I, M. GLADYS IDDINGS, of Harford County, State of Maryland, do hereby make, publish and declare this to be the First Codicil to my Last Will and Testament, hereby amending Paragraph Four of my Last Will and Testament, dated June 14, 1961, as follows: I HEREBY DEVISE AND BEQUEATH to Reuben Elliott of Darlington, Maryland, the 47 acre tract of land lying on the north side of Price Road, and along Stafford Road, near Darlington, Maryland....” (Emphasis added.) On 9 January 1973, the testatrix executed a Last Will and Testament (second will).

Item Fourth of the second will provided in pertinent part: ⁷³ "ITEM FOURTH I hereby devise and bequeath to REUBEN ELLIOTT and his wife, NELLIE ELLIOTT of Darlington, Maryland,. . . the 47 acre tract of land lying on the north side of Price Road, and along Stafford Road, near Darlington, Maryland. ...” (Emphasis added.) On 26 June 1976, the testatrix executed a first codicil to the second will. The provisions of that codicil are not relevant here. On 21 November 1976, the testatrix executed a document captioned "Second Codicil” (Second Codicil). That document provided in pertinent part: "I, M. GLADYS IDDINGS, of Harford County, State of Maryland, do declare this to be the Second Codicil to my Last Will and Testament, as follows: I hereby strike all of Item Fourth in my original Will, in its entirety and in lieu thereof declare Item Fourth to be as follows: I hereby devise and bequeath to Reuben Elliott and his wife Nellie Elliott of Darlington, Maryland each the sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), provided that both of them survive me, or all to the survivor of them.

In all other respects, I confirm my said Will.” (Emphasis added.) On 6 August 1978, the testatrix died. On 11 August 1978, the appellee, Maryland National Bank, filed the first will, the first codicil to that will, the second will, the first codicil to that will, and the Second Codicil with the Register of Wills for Harford County. On that day, in the Orphans’ Court for Harford County (Orphans’ Court), Maryland National Bank additionally filed a "Petition for Probate” of the second will, the first ⁷⁴ codicil to that will, and the Second Codicil. Copies of these three documents appeared in the file of the case.

Copies of the first will and its codicil did not appear in the file. However, a docket entry indicated that on 11 August 1978 Maryland National Bank had filed the first will and the first codicil to that will with the Register of Wills. Finally, on that day, an order was entered admitting the second will, the first codicil to that will, and the Second Codicil to administrative probate, and Maryland National Bank was appointed personal representative (personal representative). By 1 September 1978, the appellants, Reuben and Nellie Elliott (caveators), received personal notice of the appointment of the personal representative and their right to present claims. 2 On 31 January 1979, the caveators filed a "Petition and Caveat” (Caveat) contesting the validity of the Second Codicil on the sole ground that that document "was not executed by [the testatrix] when she was of sound and disposing mind, and capable of executing a valid deed or contract.” The caveators requested that the Second Codicil be "annulled and set aside.” On 8 March 1979, the personal representative filed an answer denying the allegation that the testatrix was not of sound mind.

On 27 November 1979, more than a year after the appointment of the personal representative, the caveators filed an "Amended Petition and Caveat” (Amended Caveat) again contesting the validity of the Second Codicil. The caveators raised additional grounds for contesting the validity of the Second Codicil, including improper execution, lack of knowledge or understanding, fraud, and undue influence. The caveators requested that the Second Codicil be "annulled and set aside,” that the Letters Testamentary granted to the personal representative be revoked, and that the "Court direct judicial probate, in accordance with the provisions of Estates and Trusts, § 5-207 of the Annotated Code of Maryland....” On 13 December 1979, the personal representative answered the Amended Caveat, denied all of the ⁷⁵ allegations, and asserted that all of the issues raised for the first time in the Amended Caveat were "barred by limitations” set forth in § 5-207 (a). On 14 March 1980, the personal representative filed a "Petition for Issues” which requested that the Orphans’ Court frame and transmit to a court of law the single issue "was M. Gladys Iddings legally competent to make a Will on November 21, 1976?” On the same day, the caveators filed a "Petition for Issues” requesting the Orphans’ Court to frame and transmit to a court of law all of the additional issues of fact raised in the Amended Caveat.

On 18 March 1980, a hearing was held in the Orphans’ Court. At the hearing, the caveators filed a "Supplemental Petition for Issues” which raised additional issues of fact concerning the testatrix’s intention in executing the Second Codicil and raised for the first time the issue "[d]oes the paper writing dated the 21st day of November, 1976, purporting to be a Second Codicil to the Last Will and Testament of M. Gladys Iddings, if the jury so find from the evidence, constitute a Codicil to the Last Will and Testament of M. Gladys Iddings, executed by her on January 9,1973 [second will], or a Will executed by her on some other date?” In a written opinion, dated 26 March 1980, the Orphans’ Court determined that the amendments to the timely-filed Caveat were prohibited by the time constraints set forth in § 5-207 (a) and that, consequently, the issues to be framed and submitted to a court of law were limited to the sole question raised in the Caveat, namely whether the testatrix was competent to execute the Second Codicil. On 26 March 1980, the Orphans’ Court entered an order directing that the sole issue of the testatrix’s competency to execute the Second Codicil be tried by a jury. The caveators appealed.

We issued a writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals before consideration by that court. We shall affirm. The caveators offer a variety of arguments in support of their basic contention that the time constraints set forth in § 5-207 (a) are not applicable. Several of these arguments ⁷⁶ are premised on the fact that until more than six months after the appointment of the personal representative the caveators were unaware of the existence of the first will and first codicil because the personal representative withheld that information from them.

This fact is unsupported by the record. Section 4-202 of the Estates and Trusts Article delineates the responsibilities of the custodian of a will upon the death of a testator. That section provides in pertinent part: "After the death of a testator, a person having custody of his will shall deliver the instrument to the register for the county in which administration should be had pursuant to § 5-103. The custodian may inform an interested person of the contents of the will.” (Emphasis added.) 3 The language of this section is plain and unambiguous.

The only mandatory duty of a custodian of a will is to deliver it to the register of the