Complaint Dismissed for Lack of Ripeness
Holtham v. Holtham, No. A-3894-21, 2024 WL 3896876, (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Aug. 22, 2024)
Plaintiff, Frank Holtham, Jr. (“Frank”), as the personal representative for the estate of Frank Holtham, Sr., and derivatively on behalf of CP&F Realty, LLC (the “LLC”), appealed the dismissal of his Complaint against defendants, the co-personal representatives of the mother’s estate.
The father and mother owned and operated two automobile dealerships. Their ownership interests were split 60% to the father and 40% to the mother. The father sold one dealership to Frank in 1998. In 2004, father bought property, asked Frank to perform the closing and Frank deeded the property to the LLC owned by mother’s and father’s three children. The family argued the property should have been deeded to the mother and father. The father died a resident of Florida in 2010 and the mother was appointed personal representative of his estate.
The father’s will created two trusts. The Florida probate court found the father’s estate had been fully administered and properly distributed in 2012.
Family disputes continued in Florida, with Frank suing defendants as to the LLC. Ultimately the Florida court granted the mother’s petition to reopen the father’s estate in 2020. The mother died in 2021 and her will appointed her daughters as co-personal representatives. The parties continued litigation in Florida and New Jersey.
Frank filed a Complaint in this action alleging the mother’s estate had breached the LLC’s operating agreement and converted sales proceeds. The trial court dismissed the Complaint based on an issue of ripeness due to the ongoing Florida litigation. Frank argued he had standing as the representative of father’s estate and had a fiduciary duty to protect estate assets and that his sister was mismanaging the LLC.
The appellate court affirmed, agreeing with trial judge’s application of the ripeness doctrine and noting it was unclear if the father’s estate was still an owner of the LLC. Frank was effectively urging the court in New Jersey to make a potentially adverse ruling prior to the Florida court ruling.