Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case involves a dispute over the Estate of Donelson C. Glassie. The plaintiff, Marcia Sallum Glassie, was married to Donelson C. Glassie, and they divorced in 1993. According to their property-settlement agreement, the testator was to execute a will that would treat his obligations under the agreement as a claim against his estate and bequest to the plaintiff an amount equal to said obligations. A dispute arose over what the agreement required of the testator’s will. In 1997, a Family Court justice determined that the plaintiff was entitled to a bequest of a sum equal to the testator’s obligations. The testator died in 2011, and the plaintiff filed a claim for $2,000,000 against the testator’s estate a year later, which the defendant disallowed.The case was previously reviewed by the Superior Court, which awarded the plaintiff $2,000,000, less the proceeds of a life insurance policy that she received upon the testator’s death and attorneys’ fees. However, this judgment was vacated by the Supreme Court on multiple grounds, including that the disputed provision in the will was ambiguous and required factfinding and conclusions of law with respect to the testator’s intent.In the current review by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, the plaintiff argued that the trial justice made numerous prejudicial evidentiary rulings that prevented her from presenting her case. After reviewing the record and considering the parties’ arguments, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. The court found no error in the trial justice’s decisions to prevent the plaintiff from presenting evidence regarding a trust, to allow the defendant to withdraw certain admissions, to admit evidence of a life insurance policy, and to allow evidence of the defendant’s post-death conduct. The court also found that the plaintiff had not preserved her argument regarding the trial justice’s decision to prevent her from examining the defendant about his counterclaim. View "Glassie v. Doucette" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over the will of the late Donelson C. Glassie. The plaintiff, Marcia Sallum Glassie, is the testator’s former wife. She appealed from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the defendant, Paul Doucette, in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of Donelson C. Glassie. The Superior Court affirmed an order of the Newport Probate Court denying the plaintiff’s petition for leave to file a claim out of time against the estate. The denied claim would have alleged a breach of contract, based on the plaintiff’s contention that a key provision of the testator’s will violated the terms of the couple’s property-settlement agreement.The plaintiff and the testator were married in 1986, had three children, and were divorced in 1993. According to their property-settlement agreement (PSA), the testator was to execute a will that would not only treat his obligations under the PSA as “a claim against any assets in [his] [e]state” but also “specifically bequest to [plaintiff] an amount equal to said obligations.” A dispute soon unfolded over what the PSA required of the testator’s will.In 2017, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island vacated the Superior Court judgment on multiple grounds. Relevant to the present appeal, the court determined “that the disputed provision in the will is ambiguous” because it “does not clearly specify under what circumstances plaintiff is to receive the sum of $2,000,000 or the circumstances under which she is to receive such other amount necessary to satisfy all of [the testator’s] remaining obligations.” Because “a proper resolution of this matter require[d] factfinding and conclusions of law with respect to [the] testator’s intent,” the court remanded the case to the Superior Court.Back in Superior Court, the plaintiff sought to amend her complaint with a claim for breach of contract. The Superior Court denied plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint, in part because she did not first submit the claim to the probate court, and also because the applicable statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff thereafter filed a petition in the Newport Probate Court for leave to file a claim out of time and, after the court denied her petition, she appealed that denial to the Superior Court.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, concluding that the plaintiff’s failure to timely present her claim for breach of contract was not due to excusable neglect and, therefore, her claim must be denied. View "Glassie v. Doucette" on Justia Law

This Rhode Island Supreme Court case revolves around a dispute over an estate and a related legal fee. The plaintiff, Ambrose C. Mendes, Jr., challenged an order and judgment of the Superior Court that approved two Providence Probate Court accountings and closed the estate of his late father, Ambrose Mendes, Sr. Additionally, he contested an order that granted opposing counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees. Mr. Mendes argued that the trial justice denied him his right to a jury trial.The court noted that Mr. Mendes and his siblings had been in litigation for over a decade over the administration of their father's estate and their dispute with the defendant, Kirshenbaum & Kirshenbaum Attorneys at Law, Inc. During a court hearing, Mr. Mendes agreed on record to a settlement, but later changed his mind and refused to sign the written agreement memorializing the settlement. He then filed a notice of appeal.The court held that Mr. Mendes's on-record agreement in court demonstrated his intention to be bound by the terms of the settlement. As a result, he had waived his ability to contest the acceptance of the accountings, the closing of the estate, or the decision to deny him a jury trial.However, the court vacated the trial justice’s order awarding attorney’s fees to the defendant. The court decided that the trial justice lacked jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees because, once an appeal had been docketed in this court, the lower court was divested of jurisdiction and lacked the authority to act in the case. Thus, the court affirmed the Superior Court’s order and judgment approving the accountings and closing the estate, but vacated the decision awarding the defendant attorney’s fees. View "Mendes v. Kirshenbaum & Kirshenbaum" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island heard an appeal by Kelly Maltais contesting the dismissal of her probate appeal by the Superior Court. Kelly challenged the last will and testament of her father, Laurent E. Maltais, alleging fraud, duress, and undue influence, and asserting that her father lacked testamentary capacity. Kelly's probate appeal was dismissed by the Superior Court on the grounds that it was filed 32 days after the probate court order, two days beyond the statutory 30-day limit for appeal. Kelly argued that the 30th day fell on a Saturday, and under Rule 6 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, she had until the following Monday to file her appeal.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island vacated the order of the Superior Court, ruling that the computation of time for the 30-day deadline is tolled when the last day for filing falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday, in order to give appellants the full benefit of all the time allowed, even if it necessitates giving an additional day. The case was remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Maltais v. Maltais" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the amended judgment of the superior court in favor of Plaintiff, as executor of the Estate of Armando Damiani (Mandy) and the Estate of Lillian Estrella, in this action alleging that Defendants had conspired to commit an unlawful conversion of funds in Mandy's investment account, holding that the portion of the amended judgment awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages and prejudgment interest was error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial justice erred by permitting a witness to testify despite knowing that she would invoke her privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, and the error prejudiced Defendant; and (2) there was no reason to disturb the trial justice's decision on Plaintiff's claim for declaratory judgment. View "Estrella v. Janney Montgomery Scott LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in this probate case involving an international will dispute impacting the probate of he estate of Matoula Papadopouli (the decedent), holding that the superior court did not err in affirming the order of probate court.The decedent held dual citizenship in the United States and Greece. The administratrix of the estate filed a miscellaneous petition requesting an order granting her full access to the estate's accounts in order to pay expenses related to a will contest in Greece. The probate court granted the motion. The superior court affirmed after applying Rhode Island law to the case, holding that Rhode Island law authorized the use of the estate's assets to fulfill the will contest in Greece. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err in allowing the administratrix to use the estate's assets to fund the estate's defense to the Greek litigation. View "Smile of the Child v. Estate of Papadopouli" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court affirming an order of the probate court admitting the last will and testament of Barbara J. Cardiff, holding that the trial justice did not err in affirming the probate court because the will met the necessary formalities of R.I. Gen. Laws 33-5-5.Before the superior court, Petitioners argued that the will did not conform with the requirements of section 33-5-5 because it was not subscribed by two witnesses, but rather, a witness and a notary public. The trial justice determined that the will was signed by two witness, thus affirming the probate court's order admitting the will to probate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err as to any of the issues raised by Petitioners. View "In re Estate of Barbara J. Cardiff" on Justia Law

In this litigation between the beneficiaries and trustees of two trusts the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court granting the trustees' petition for their services and expenses, including attorneys' fees incurred on behalf of the trusts and interest owed on those fees, holding that there was no error.The trial justice determined that the trustees were entitled to be indemnified for their attorneys' fees after considering the beneficiaries' arguments against payment of attorneys' fees. The court then entered judgment stating that reasonable attorneys fees were to be indemnified by the trust, that an unpaid balance remained, and that interest on the attorneys' fees would accrue through the conclusion of any appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the beneficiaries' argument that the trustees should not be awarded fees for pursuing their own fees was waived; and (2) the trial justice properly awarded interest as an expense reasonably incurred in the administration of the trust. View "Kumble v. Voccola" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in favor of the Estate of Everett Joseph Hopkins in the Estate's action to declare a warranty deed null and void for failure of delivery, holding that the trial justice did not err or abuse her discretion.The trial justice determined that the warranty deed was void for failure of delivery because Everett did not intend to surrender control of and completely divest himself of title to the property. The trial justice further found that the deed was not accepted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice properly determined that the executed warranty deed was void for failure of delivery and acceptance. View "Estate of Everett Joseph Hopkins v. Hopkins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the superior court granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee on the basis that Appellant failed to perfect her probate appeal under R.I. Gen. Laws 33-23-1, holding that Appellant perfected her probate appeal.Appellant, the surviving spouse of the decedent, filed a claim of appeal after the decedent's will, which named Appellee as executrix and left his law firm assets to her, was admitted to probate. The hearing justice granted summary judgment for Appellee, concluding that Appellant did not comply with the statutory requirements of section 33-23-1. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that there was competent evidence proving the existence of a disputed issue of material fact. View "Estate of John P. Garan" on Justia Law