Sitting Pretty In Probate - What Sandstead Means For Probate Jurisdiction

This article looks at subject matter jurisdiction in probate court. It focuses on the impact the Colorado Supreme Court's recent decision in Sandstead-Corona v. Sandstead.

Probate litigation often involves vexing disputes regarding jurisdiction, 1 standing,2 and the scope and exercise of equitable powers and judicial discretion.3 Unfortunately, certainty and predictability have not always been the hallmarks of such disputes.

Issues involving jurisdiction are crucial because, unlike district courts with plenary powers, courts "sitting in probate" are constrained by limited subject matter jurisdiction.4 Notably, litigants must understand that a probate court judgment exceeding the court's jurisdiction remains subject to attack.

This article considers subject matter jurisdiction in probate court, with an emphasis on the Colorado Supreme Court's recent decision in Sandstead-Corona v. Sandstead, which clarifies subject matter jurisdiction.5

Sandstead-Corona v. Sandstead

In spring 2018, the Colorado Supreme Court threw its shoulder into the probate arena with an important decision. In Sandstead,6 the Court extended probate jurisdiction by upholding the use of an implied trust for a multiparty bank account that held farm sales proceeds.

By recognizing the "logical relationship" between the accounts and the proper and orderly administration of the probate estate, the Sandstead Court concluded that the trial court sitting in probate had the requisite subject matter jurisdiction.7 The Court brushed aside the assertion that the probate court lacked jurisdiction because the accounts were "not part of the probate estate."8

The Sandstead Nexus

Sandstead rests on the fundamental conclusion that there is a necessary nexus or connection between nonprobate bank accounts and probate administration. Sandstead's conclusion was based on competent evidence that the decedent intended for farm sales proceeds to be handled as part of her dispositive plan.9 This evidence allowed the Court to find that the action satisfied CRS § 13-9-103(3), which provides that a probate court "has jurisdiction to determine every legal and equitable question arising in connection with decedents' . . . estates."10

The phrase "in connection with" "contemplates a logical and contextual relationship or association exhibiting 'coherence' or 'continuity.'"11 Applying this definition in the context of a probate court's jurisdiction, prior decisions of the Colorado Court of Appeals had...