Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Victor and Madonna Mendes's probate appeal and the plaintiffs' verified complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, while vacating dismissal of Ambrose Mendes's probate appeal. The court held that only Ambrose properly filed the probate appeal, but that the consent order sufficiently stated the reasons for appeal. It also held that the claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and declined to adopt the asserted continuing-course-of-conduct and continuing-representation doctrines in this context.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Victor and Madonna Mendes properly perfected an appeal from the Probate Court when only Ambrose Mendes signed the claim of appeal.
- Whether a consent order under G.L. 1956 § 33-23-1(f), identifying the issues for appeal, satisfied the statutory requirement to file specifically stated reasons of appeal under § 33-23-1(a)(2).
- Whether the plaintiffs' breach-of-fiduciary-duty and negligence or legal-malpractice claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
- Whether Rhode Island should adopt a continuing course of conduct doctrine to toll the statutes of limitations in this case.
- Whether the discovery-rule exception applied to the plaintiffs' legal-malpractice claims.
Holdings
- Only Ambrose Mendes properly filed the probate appeal because he was the only plaintiff who signed the claim of appeal; Victor and Madonna did not perfect appeals.
- A consent order created for the purpose of stipulating to a probate appeal under § 33-23-1(f), which preserves or frames the issues for appeal, satisfies § 33-23-1(a)(2)'s requirement that the appellant file specifically stated reasons of appeal.
- The plaintiffs' breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims were barred by the ten-year statute of limitations for civil actions, and their negligence claims characterized as legal-malpractice claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations.
- The Court declined to adopt the continuing course of conduct doctrine in the context of this case.
- The discovery-rule exception did not apply because the plaintiffs were aware, or should have been aware through reasonable diligence, of facts placing them on notice of potential claims by 1987.
Key quotations
“We are of the opinion that, although § 33-23-1(f) does not excuse an appellant from the procedural requirements listed elsewhere in the statute, "a form of order or decree [that] preserve[s] or frame[s] issues as the parties desire" and that is created for the express purpose of stipulating to a probate appeal under § 33-23-1(f), satisfies the requirement of § 33-23-1(a)(2)—that the appellant file "the reasons of appeal" in the Superior Court.” (at 1002-03)
“However, this Court has not adopted the continuing course of conduct doctrine, and we decline to do so in the context of this case.” (at 1005)
Factual background
Ambrose C. Mendes, Sr. died in 1976 after executing a will that appointed coexecutors and created a trust for his three children, with the trust assets to be distributed equally when the youngest child reached age thirty. The plaintiffs alleged that the fiduciaries failed to create and distribute the trust, mishandled Intersection Realty's properties, sold assets below fair market value, failed to maintain insurance and pay taxes, and failed to account for or distribute estate funds. After long-delayed accountings were filed in 2008, the beneficiaries objected and pursued a stipulated probate appeal and related fiduciary-duty and negligence claims.
Procedural history
The Providence Probate Court entered a consent order on March 3, 2009, stipulating to an appeal concerning the fiduciary's duties, accountings, authority to sell estate assets, and accounting for sale proceeds. Only Ambrose signed the claim of appeal. The plaintiffs then filed a verified complaint in Superior Court, which dismissed both the probate appeal and complaint on defendants' motions. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
Remand instructions
Remand the record to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including allowing Ambrose Mendes's probate appeal to proceed while leaving affirmed the dismissal of Victor and Madonna Mendes's probate appeal and the verified complaint.