AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Edward McElveny (Decedent) passed away intestate in 1991, leaving behind seven adult grandchildren and one adult great-grandchild as heirs. In 2013, Michael Phillips, a grandson, applied to the Santa Fe probate court to open an informal probate for his grandfather and to be appointed as the personal representative of the Decedent's estate. The application revealed that the Decedent had property transferred to the State of New Mexico's Department of Taxation and Revenue as unclaimed property, valued at just under $70,000. The heirs nominated Phillips for the role, and the probate court appointed him, ordering the Department to release the unclaimed property to him as the personal representative (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (Estate of Edward K. McElveny, Michael Phillips as Personal Representative): Argued that the district court has jurisdiction under the Uniform Probate Code to order the Department of Taxation and Revenue to deliver estate assets in its custody to a personal representative, despite those assets being held under the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act. Contended that the probate court's order was valid and enforceable for the release of the unclaimed property to the estate for distribution to the heirs (paras 3, 9-13).
• Respondent-Appellant (State of New Mexico, Department of Taxation and Revenue): Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order the release of unclaimed property to the estate, asserting that the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act is the exclusive method for disbursing such property. Additionally, claimed that the estate failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that the probate court's order was void due to lack of service of process on the Department (paras 4, 7, 14).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court has jurisdiction under the Uniform Probate Code to order the Department of Taxation and Revenue to deliver estate assets in its custody to a personal representative, when those assets are held pursuant to the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (para 1).
• Whether the probate court's order was void due to lack of service of process on the Department of Taxation and Revenue (para 14).

Disposition

• The district court's order, which enforced the probate court's directive for the Department of Taxation and Revenue to release the unclaimed property to the personal representative of the Estate, was affirmed (para 19).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil, with Judges Cynthia A. Fry and Roderick T. Kennedy concurring, held that:
  The district court indeed had jurisdiction under the Uniform Probate Code to order the Department to deliver the decedent's property to the personal representative of the estate. This jurisdiction is explicitly granted by the Uniform Probate Code, which allows a personal representative to take possession of the decedent’s property and maintain actions to recover possession of property. The Court found no legislative intent that the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act supersedes the Uniform Probate Code in such matters (paras 9-13).
  The argument that the probate court's order was void due to lack of service of process on the Department was rejected. Probate proceedings are in rem special statutory proceedings, and the UPC does not require service of process upon a custodian of a decedent’s property in such circumstances. The Department was given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard, satisfying the requirements for due process (paras 14-16).
  The Department's additional arguments, including the assertion that the estate did not exhaust its administrative remedies and that the estate's claim was insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption of abandonment, were also rejected. The Court emphasized that the estate was not required to proceed under the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act and that the Department had conceded the property belonged to the decedent (paras 17-18).