Matter of Estate of Wright
1994 Me. LEXIS 16, 637 A.2d 106 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When interpreting an international treaty directing that a dispute be decided by the 'laws' of a foreign nation, the term 'laws' is interpreted broadly to include that nation's conflict-of-law rules, not just its substantive domestic laws. Separately, litigation brought in good faith that presents a strong, close legal question is considered 'beneficial to the estate' for the purpose of awarding attorney fees, even if the litigant is unsuccessful.
Facts:
- H. Dudley Wright ('the Testator'), a United States citizen, was domiciled in Switzerland at the time of his death.
- In 1960, the Testator established trusts for his children from a previous marriage, Holly Wright and Dana Wright Holland ('the Children').
- On January 11, 1992, the Testator executed his Last Will and Testament, which included a provision selecting Maine law to govern his estate's administration.
- The will made no provision for the Children, though it provided for the Testator's wife and other children.
- The Testator died in Maine on January 18, 1992, leaving an estate that included property in France and Switzerland.
- Under substantive Swiss law, the Children would be entitled to 'forced shares' of the estate, a right that does not exist under Maine law.
Procedural Posture:
- The Estate of H. Dudley Wright submitted the Testator's will for administration in the York County Probate Court (Maine).
- The Children challenged the will's provision selecting Maine law, asserting their right to forced shares under Swiss law.
- The Probate Court, acting as the court of first instance, first determined that the Testator was domiciled in Switzerland.
- After hearing expert testimony, the Probate Court ruled that Swiss law would uphold the Testator's choice of Maine law, thereby defeating the Children's claim.
- The Probate Court also awarded attorney fees to the Children.
- The Children, as appellants, appealed the Probate Court's choice-of-law ruling to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
- The Estate, as cross-appellant, appealed the Probate Court's award of attorney fees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the term 'laws' in the 1850 Swiss-United States Treaty incorporate Swiss conflict-of-law rules, thereby allowing a U.S. citizen domiciled in Switzerland to elect in his will that his estate be governed by his national law?
Opinions:
Majority - Collins, Justice
Yes, the term 'laws' in the 1850 Swiss-United States Treaty includes a country's conflict-of-law rules, not just its substantive law. The key issue involves interpreting the 1850 Treaty, which states succession controversies are decided 'according to the laws' of the country where property is situated, in conjunction with a 1988 Swiss law (Article 90) that allows a foreign national to subject his estate to one of his national laws. The court found the testimony of the Estate's expert on Swiss law more persuasive, indicating that modern Swiss legal scholarship supports interpreting the Treaty to include conflict-of-law rules like Article 90. The court reasoned that the primary purpose of the Treaty was to ensure equality of treatment. Barring a U.S. citizen from using a choice-of-law provision available to all other foreigners in Switzerland would contradict this purpose. Therefore, a Swiss court would likely give effect to the Testator’s choice-of-law provision, validating the selection of Maine law. On the cross-appeal, the court affirmed the award of attorney fees to the Children, holding that litigation brought in 'good faith' that presents a 'strong and close case' satisfies the 'benefit to the estate' standard required by statute, as it helps to clarify important legal questions regarding the estate's administration.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that when U.S. courts interpret international treaties referring to the 'laws' of a foreign signatory, the term should be read broadly to include that nation's entire legal framework, including conflict-of-law rules. This approach promotes the principle of testamentary freedom and ensures that the treaty's goal of equal treatment for citizens abroad is upheld. The ruling also signifies the importance of expert testimony on modern legal scholarship in civil law jurisdictions, where judicial precedent holds less weight. This case will guide future international probate disputes by favoring a holistic interpretation of foreign law over a narrow, fragmented one.
