United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
____________________
No. 00-1084
ROBERT W. MANGIERI,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
PAUL MANGIERI, AS EXECUTOR OF
THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH F. MANGIERI,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Wallace,* Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
_____________________
Peter D. Prevett for appellant.
Pamela E. Terry, with whom Forman, Terry, Hickey & Garrahan L.L.P.
was on brief, for appellee.
____________________
* Of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
September 11, 2000
____________________
-2-
TORRUELLA, Chief Judge. This case arises from a will contest
between plaintiff-appellant Robert W. Mangieri and defendant-appellee
Paul Mangieri, who are, respectively, the only son and a nephew of the
now deceased Joseph F. Mangieri. The case was filed on August 31,
1999. The complaint alleges two claims: first, a claim under
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 191 § 20, the omitted child statute;
and second, a breach of fiduciary duty claim against appellee Paul
Mangieri based on his actions as executor of the estate of Joseph W.
Mangieri. The district court granted summary judgment for appellee on
November 4, 1999. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
The essential facts are as follows: On November 2, 1984,
Joseph F. Mangieri executed a will in which he divided his estate
between his brothers, Robert L. and Sal Mangieri, his sister-in-law,
Josephine Mangieri, and other beneficiaries. The 1984 will contained
a clause stating that any children not provided for in the will were
intentionally omitted from the will. The 1984 will made no provision
for decedent's son, Robert W. Mangieri. On February 12, 1987, Joseph
executed a second will. The 1987 will did not make any provision for
Robert; however, in contrast to the 1984 will, it did not expressly
state that this omission was intentional. The 1987 will left the
entire estate to testator's nephew, Paul Mangieri. Paul Mangieri was
also named executor of the 1987 will. On May 28, 1997, Joseph directed
his attorney to draw up a new will, which, if executed, would have left
-3-
the bulk of his estate to his son Robert. Joseph died on June 10, 1997
without having signed the new will.
A trial ensued in the Massachusetts Probate Court. On April
12, 1999, the probate court issued detailed findings of fact and
conclusions of law. For our purposes, it is only relevant that (1) the
court explicitly found that testator-decedent had deliberately left his
son Robert out of the 1987 will, and (2) the court admitted the 1987
will to probate as the Last Will and Testament of the Decedent. Robert
Mangieri neither filed a motion to amend the probate court's findings
of fact nor appealed the court's judgment.
On August 31, 1999, appellant filed suit against Paul
Mangieri, as executor of the estate of Joseph F. Mangieri, in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As
indicated, the complaint alleges (1) a claim under Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 191 § 20, the omitted child statute, and (2) that
Paul Mangieri committed a breach of his fiduciary duty as executor of
Joseph F. Mangieri's estate by failing to consider Robert's claim as an
omitted child and thus failing to protect Robert's interest as one of
the testator's heirs. Appellant alleges that jurisdiction is proper
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the federal diversity of citizenship
statute.
At the time appellant filed his complaint in federal court,
he simultaneously filed a motion for an ex parte temporary restraining
-4-
order. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion on
September 2, 1999. After notice to opposing counsel was provided, the
court held a second hearing on September 8, 1999. At that time,
appellee filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court construed
as a motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, on September 15th,
appellant renewed his motion for a preliminary injunction. On November
4, 1999, the district court issued an order granting appellee's motion
to dismiss, denying appellant's motion for preliminary injunction, and
entering judgment for appellee, Paul Mangieri. The court reasoned, in
part, that:
The core issues that require dismissal of this
case in the view of this court are that (1) this
court lacks authority to hear and resolve this
case on the merits because this controversy is
within the jurisdiction of the Probate Court of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and that court
has taken jurisdiction and issued findings and
conclusions that preclude plaintiff's claim, and
(2) this court either lacks jurisdiction . . . or
in the exercise of discretion should not exercise
jurisdiction to make any order that would be
inconsistent with or otherwise impede completion
of proceedings in that court before it has
reached a final disposition.
Mangieri v. Mangieri, No. 99-11812, slip op. at 7 (D. Mass. Nov. 4,
1999).
We believe that the district court's ruling in this case is
amply supported by both the record and the law and needs little
analysis. Under the probate exception to diversity jurisdiction, "a
-5-
federal court may not probate a will, administer an estate, or
entertain an action that would interfere with pending probate
proceedings in a state court or with a state court's control of
property in its custody." Ashton v. Josephine Bay Paul & C. Michael
Paul Found., Inc., 918 F.2d 1065, 1071 (2d Cir. 1990) (citing Markham
v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490, 494 (1946)). While "[t]he precise scope of the
probate exception has not been clearly established," it is clear that
"[a]s a general matter, courts tend to view the probate exception as
extending to all suits 'ancillary' to the probate of a will." Georges
v. Glick, 856 F.2d 971, 973 (7th Cir. 1988) (citing Dragan v. Miller,
679 F.2d 712, 715 (7th Cir. 1982)). In this Circuit, we have
previously stated:
It is obvious that insofar as the complaint
requests the district court to order the
defendants to turn over to the plaintiff property
which they received in their capacity as
fiduciaries, and for which they are accountable
to the probate court, the federal district court
had no jurisdiction.
Kittredge v. Stevens, 126 F.2d 263, 266 (1st Cir. 1942). Against this
background, it is clear that this case falls squarely within the
probate exception to the diversity jurisdiction of the district court.
First, appellant's claim is within the jurisdiction of the
Massachusetts Probate Court. Second, as appellant concedes, the relief
he requests would require the district court to set aside the ruling of
-6-
the probate court that appellant Robert was deliberately omitted from
the 1987 will and that the 1987 will must be admitted to probate as the
Last Will and Testament of the Decedent. In fact, the complaint
"demands that [the district court] find Plaintiff is an omitted child,
is entitled to an intestate share of the testator-decedent, Joseph F.
Mangieri's estate, and order Paul Mangieri, as executor, to distribute
the estate accordingly." In our view, the district court correctly
declined to do so on the ground that this would improperly interfere
with a probate proceeding currently pending before the Massachusetts
State Probate Court.1
For the reasons stated, the decision of the district court
is affirmed.
1 In light of our conclusion that the probate exception to federal
diversity jurisdiction applies to this case, we need not address the
district court's alternative holding that abstention is proper
pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Mangieri, No. 99-11812,
slip op. at 8 (citing District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983), and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S.
413, 416 (1923)).
-7-