The Court of Appeals explains the proper way to challenge the appointment of an estate administrator
Grady v. Blackwell, Record No. 1520-23-3 (Va. Ct. App. June 18, 2024)
On October 4, 2021, Erin Baker died intestate when she was hit by a truck. Baker had lived in Pennsylvania, and her parents each renounced their right to administer Baker’s estate there, asking instead that her fiancé Zachary Grady be appointed. Grady was appointed to administer Baker’s estate in Pennsylvania on December 10, 2021. On February 14, 2022, Baker’s mother Joan Blackwell was appointed to administer Baker’s estate in Virginia for purposes of prosecuting a wrongful death claim. Blackwell filed the wrongful death suit the same day against the truck driver who hit Baker and the driver’s employer, which was removed to the Western District of Virginia.
By March 10, 2022, Grady had learned of Blackwell’s appointment. Rather than challenging her appointment, he filed another wrongful death suit against the driver and employer in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. That suit was transferred to the Western District of Virginia where it was dismissed for lack of standing.
On February 3, 2023, Grady filed a “Motion for Protective Order and for Injunction” in Virginia, claiming that Blackwell could not prosecute the wrongful death suit as Baker’s administrator in Virginia since she had renounced her administration rights in Pennsylvania. He argued that Virginia had to recognize Blackwell’s renunciation in Pennsylvania under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. He sought a protective order under Code § 64.2-445, which generally allows an interested person to appeal a clerk’s order appointing an estate administer, and requested an injunction under Code § 8.01-620, which generally gives circuit court’s jurisdiction to award injunctions. Blackwell, on the other hand, asked the court to decide the case on the alternative ground that Grady’s claims were barred by Code § 64.2-445’s six-month statute of limitations.
Though the trial court ultimately sided with Blackwell, it chose to decide the case on the constitutional grounds asserted by Grady. Grady appealed.
The Court of Appeals also sided with Blackwell but chose not to decide the case on the constitutional grounds asserted by Grady. Rather, it followed the “fundamental and longstanding precept” that when a case can be decided on either of two grounds, where one involves a constitutional issue and the other does not, the court should decide the non-constitutional issue only. In this case, that meant finding that Grady’s claims were barred by Code § 64.2-445’s statute of limitations.
A person who is qualified to administer an estate in another state does not thereby qualify to administer the estate in Virginia. A different person may therefore be appointed to prosecute a wrongful death action in Virginia. A circuit court clerk is empowered to make that appointment. If an interested person wants to challenge that appointment, however, Code § 64.2-445 requires an appeal of the order be filed within six months of the entry of the order. Here, Grady waited more than a year to challenge Blackwell’s appointment under that Code section and did not request that the court consider any equitable-tolling principle to excuse his untimely challenge.
The Court of Appeals found Grady’s collateral action for injunctive relief likewise unavailing. A collateral attack on an order of appointment is only permissible if the order is void ab initio, which this order was not. And though Code § 8.01-620 confers “general jurisdiction” on circuit courts to award injunctions, “where a positive statutory remedy exists for the redress of particular grievances, a court of equity will not interfere by injunction and assume jurisdiction of the questions involved.” Here, a statutory remedy existed, Grady just failed to employ it properly.