So Barbara Stone and I were wondering, what is this “probate exception” that keeps normally tough and anti corruption Federal Courts from providing a second look at what is going on in Probate Court that sometimes can only be described as utterly down the rabbit hole.
Where does this come from? How does “probate exception” scare even the toughest of judges when the public is clamoring for a RICO presumption in probate, the Federal Court judges cower and dump anything that mentions probate as a regular course of business.
I mean, by that measure, they should dump all personal property disputes that liquidate and divide assest, maybe there should be a business partnership exception (probate is much like winding down a business, assets are sold and liquidated and disputes between the partners as to valuation and ethics in transactions are carefully scrutinized by Federal Court judges all the time when there is diversity, etc.) I just don’t see the dichotomy why the Federal Courts won’t step in when the State Probate Courts are ablaze with fraud, problems and issues in some cases with a lot of money. If the Federal Courts can decide multi million dollar cases, tens of millions of dollars of cases, why do they (fallaciously) claim they “don’t do probate” they don’t “have the expertise” (ie, it’s too hard for them to think about probate), when you know all the judges are mostly brilliant, went to ivy league law schools, and/or they have a bevy of brilliant law clerks. What gives?
Here is a good article from Tim Lahrman on what this animal is, when did it evolve and what are the various standards from state to state.
Read and enjoy.
So is this a probate exception or just a probate excuse from accusations of abuse of civil and human rights? Why aren’t the federal courts stepping in when the state courts do nothing to protect civil and human rights.? Why do the federal courts now only want large corporate disputes and have forgotten the real reason they exist–for the citizens and not the mega corporations of the US.