Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

After the death of Harry Fairhurst in 2019, his will—executed in 1981 with a 1997 codicil—left his estate equally to his seven children and named two of them as co-executors. The main asset was the family home. The will allowed the co-executors to sell estate assets without probate court approval, provided all children were notified by mail of their option to purchase. In 2020, the co-executors notified the devisees that the property was available, but the letter omitted key sale terms. No child responded. Subsequently, William, one of the co-executors, purchased the property for $260,000, using part of his share as an advance toward the purchase price, despite a higher bank appraisal and market analysis.Three siblings objected to the accounting of the sale in Cumberland Probate Court, focusing on the valuation and terms. The probate court, without hearing argument, found the sale invalid and illegal because the co-executors had not sought probate court approval, as required by Rhode Island General Laws § 33-19-9. The property was ordered to remain with the estate. The co-executors appealed to Providence County Superior Court, arguing the will authorized the sale without court approval and that the probate court’s sua sponte action violated their due process rights. Both sides moved for summary judgment.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the case on appeal. It held that, regardless of the will’s language, § 33-19-9 required probate court approval for a co-executor’s private purchase of estate property to prevent self-dealing and ensure fairness. The Court found the will’s contrary provision invalid to the extent it conflicted with the statute and rejected the co-executors’ due process and laches arguments. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment, upholding the voiding of the sale. View "Fairhurst v. Fairhurst" on Justia Law

Several charitable trusts were established between 1930 and 1969, each naming Memorial Hospital in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, as a beneficiary. The trusts specified the use of funds for purposes such as maintaining “free beds” or supporting general hospital operations. Memorial Hospital operated as an acute care hospital until financial difficulties led to its closure in 2018, at which point it ceased providing inpatient and emergency services. Some outpatient services continued on the campus, but Memorial Hospital was no longer a functioning hospital. Bank of America, as trustee, sought judicial guidance under the cy près doctrine to designate new beneficiaries for the trusts whose purposes could no longer be fulfilled due to the hospital’s closure.Upon review, the Providence County Superior Court found that the closure of Memorial Hospital rendered the trusts’ original purposes impossible, and that each settlor evidenced a general charitable intent. The court conducted a bench trial, considering expert testimony, historical context, and proposals from various organizations, including Kent County Hospital, The Miriam Hospital Foundation, and Progreso Latino. The trustee and several parties proposed a split between The Miriam Hospital Foundation and Progreso Latino, while others argued for Kent County Hospital as the successor beneficiary. The court ultimately rejected both proposals, finding that neither alternative met the settlors’ intent to support actual hospital care.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the case on appeal. The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment, holding that the cy près doctrine applied and that The Miriam Hospital, as an acute care hospital offering inpatient and emergency services, was the closest alternative beneficiary to fulfill the original charitable purposes. The Court clarified that the trust proceeds must be used by Miriam Hospital for inpatient and emergency care, consistent with the settlors’ intent. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Bank of America, N.A. v. Neronha" on Justia Law

Jacquelin Glassie filed a claim against the estate of her father, Donelson Glassie, alleging he breached a property settlement agreement by failing to adequately fund a trust established for her benefit. The executor of Donelson's estate, Paul Doucette, disallowed the claim, leading to a lawsuit in the Superior Court. After Jacquelin's death, her sister Alison, as executrix of Jacquelin's estate, continued the lawsuit. The Superior Court initially granted summary judgment for the estate, but the Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trustee of the trust, Wells Fargo, was the proper plaintiff. Wells Fargo then assigned its claims to Alison.A jury trial in the Superior Court resulted in a verdict for Alison, awarding her $1,164,138.43 in damages, which, with prejudgment interest, totaled $2,856,572.45. The jury also rejected the estate's counterclaim that Jacquelin had forfeited her interest under Donelson's will. The defendant, Doucette, filed a notice of appeal but failed to timely order the trial transcripts, leading Alison to move to dismiss the appeal.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case after the Superior Court granted Alison's motion to dismiss the appeal due to Doucette's failure to timely order the transcripts and follow proper procedures for an extension. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that Doucette's reasons for the delay, including hopes for mediation and cost-saving, did not constitute excusable neglect. The Court noted the extensive litigation history and the trial justice's efforts to move the case forward, concluding that the deadlines were necessary and should be adhered to. View "Glassie v. Doucette" on Justia Law

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