DocketNumber: No. KP-08-0828
Judges: LANPHEAR, J.
Filed Date: 2/4/2009
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
Ms. Gemma filed a petition for administration with the Warwick Probate Court. Mr. Ricci executed a waiver consenting to the appointment of Ms. Gemma as the Administratrix. The Probate Court then established the Estate of Anthony Gemma ("Estate") and appointed Ms. Gemma as Administratrix of the Estate on May 17, 2007.
On January 28, 2008, Mr. Ricci filed a petition to remove Ms. Gemma as the Administratrix, alleging that Ms. Gemma and her attorney attempted to deprive Ricci of his legal *Page 2 share of the Estate. Mr. Ricci's petition sought to appoint himself as the new Administrator of the Estate; however, he now seeks the appointment of a neutral administrator.
Ms. Gemma opposed the Removal Petition, and the Probate Court heard arguments on the Removal Petition on May 15, 2008. On June 6, 2008, the Probate Court issued an Order denying the petition and retained Ms. Gemma as Administratrix of the Estate. However, the Probate Court ordered Ms. Gemma, through her counsel, to share documents and information regarding the wrongful death litigation with Mr. Ricci to the extent that attorney-client privilege allows. The Order also provided that should any money flow into the Estate, the original bond be immediately increased to a bond with corporate surety in the amount equal to that coming into the Estate. Mandated periodic reviews before the Court were scheduled.
Mr. Ricci promptly filed an appeal of the Probate Court's Order with this Court pursuant to §
The removal of an administrator of an estate is governed by Rhode Island General Laws §
Mr. Ricci first contends that Ms. Gemma's conflict of interest bars her from service as administrator. The Rhode Island removal statute does not require removal for an alleged conflict. R.I.G.L. §
Here, Mr. Ricci failed to show that Ms. Gemma's interest necessarily conflict with the interests of the Estate. The fact that Ms. Gemma may disagree with the law, or Mr. Ricci's pursuit of his legal right to money from his deceased son's estate, does not reasonably infer that she will not adhere to the law.3 Moreover, there is scant evidence that Ms. Gemma has not, or will not, act in the best interest of the Estate. Ms. Gemma has fulfilled her obligations as Administratrix of the Estate by pursuing the wrongful death suit, the most significant asset of the Estate. She has closely followed and attended court proceedings regarding the prosecution of the individual responsible for the motor vehicle collision resulting in Anthony's death, as well as the probate and wrongful death proceedings. Ms. Gemma has not become incapable of executing *Page 5 her trust based on any alleged conflict of interest due to the personal animosity between Ms. Gemma and Mr. Ricci. To the contrary, her actions display a zealous desire to press for judicial action.
Mr. Ricci also asserts that Ms. Gemma should be removed as the Administratrix of the Estate because she may seek a larger allocation of the wrongful death proceeds based on her loss of society and companionship claim. This argument does not provide an appropriate basis for removing Ms. Gemma as the Administratrix of the Estate for several reasons. First, the Rhode Island Supreme Court has long held that "the mere fact that one has a claim against an estate is not a disqualification for the office [of Administratrix], nor evidence of unsuitableness to discharge the duties of the trust." Murray v.Angell,
Mr. Ricci's argument that Ms. Gemma will seek a larger allocation of the wrongful death proceeds is premature. To this Court's knowledge, there is no money in the Estate at this time. When, and if, money does flow into the Estate, any distributions made from the Estate or settlements negotiated on behalf of the Estate are subject to approval or authorization by the Probate Court. Ms. Gemma, as the Administratrix, is required to file a statement with the Probate Court "setting out the names of the legatees, the amounts to be paid, and the property to be turned over to them respectively, or to be held by himself or herself as trustee." G.L. 1956 §
[t]he probate court may authorize . . . administrators . . . to adjust by compromise, or otherwise settle or dispose of, any claim in favor of or against, or any controversy or thing whatever relating to the estates by them represented . . . and for any of these purposes to enter into, give, execute, make, and do the Probate Court may authorize an administratrix to enter into a settlement agreement, and approve such settlement by order or decree. G.L. 1956 §
33-18-16 .
The Probate Courts routinely receive and review accounts. G.L. 1956 ch. 33-14. Therefore, the Probate Court will monitor and may amend distributions and authorize any settlement4 negotiated on behalf of the Estate, further ensuring protection of Mr. Ricci's legal rights.
In addition to the statutory protections providing judicial supervision over the distributions of the Estate, Mr. Ricci's concerns regarding Ms. Gemma's role as Administratrix is further allayed by the Probate Court's requirement that Ms. Gemma post a bond. The Probate Courts are empowered to do that which is necessary and incidental to the jurisdictional powers provided in G.L. 1956 §
Mr. Ricci additionally argues that Ms. Gemma should be removed as the Adminstratrix of the Estate because Ms. Gemma violated an understanding between the parties to share all *Page 7 information regarding the proceedings in the separate wrongful death litigation. A series of letters and e-mails went back and forth between Ms. Gemma's counsel, and Mr. Ricci's counsel regarding a possible settlement from Allstate Insurance Company. In July 2007, Mr. Ricci's counsel wrote to Ms. Gemma's counsel, inquiring about a possible settlement offer or receipt of settlement funds. In e-mails of September 7 and 11, 2007, Ms. Gemma's counsel responded that no settlement proposal had been tendered by Allstate. On March 4, 2008, Allstate responded to a request from Mr. Ricci's counsel with a letter stating that a settlement proposal had been extended on August 30, 2007.5 Ms. Gemma's counsel then explained the offer had been extended to an associate of the law firm and he was unaware of the proposal when he told Mr. Ricci's counsel that no proposals were received.
While the settlement proposal was extended just before a holiday weekend, Ms. Gemma's counsel may not have personally been aware of a settlement offer. However, he should have been diligent to check with associates handling the matter, to correct his earlier misstatement, and to keep Mr. Ricci's counsel informed.6 Regardless, these facts do not establish that Ms. Gemma is incapable of executing her trust.7 *Page 8
Mr. Ricci also raises the argument that Ms. Gemma's attorney has a conflict of interest in representing Ms. Gemma as the Administratrix of the Estate and concurrently representing Ms. Gemma in the wrongful death litigation. Any conflict of interest that Ms. Gemma's counsel may have is more appropriately a question for another forum. See generally Supreme Court Rules, Art. III.
Counsel may submit an appropriate order for entry.
To engage in the practice of law is to engage in a noble profession. It is to approach the resolution of disputes with a spirit of high mindedness and with knowledge that the client's problems and antagonisms are not the lawyer's. By providing professional assistance to those who cannot resolve disputes without outside intervention and by championing their causes and interests in a professional manner, lawyers daily perform services of great social utility. But this kind of performance has no place in our judicial system. Behavior of the type this record reveals demeans the participants, demeans the witnesses and demeans the very system and essence of justice itself. It simply cannot be tolerated. . . . Self-help through bombast or insults is not an option. Cholfin v. Gordon,
1995 WL 809916 ,9 (Mass.Super. 1995).
Parker v. Shullman , 843 So. 2d 960 ( 2003 )
In Re Sumpter Estate , 166 Mich. App. 48 ( 1988 )
Burford v. Estate of Skelly , 699 A.2d 854 ( 1997 )
Malinou v. McCarthy , 98 R.I. 189 ( 1964 )
In Re Estate of Taylor , 114 R.I. 562 ( 1975 )
Sindelar v. Leguia , 750 A.2d 967 ( 2000 )
Blackmon Ex Rel. Will & Estate of Blackmon v. Weaver , 366 S.C. 245 ( 2005 )
Murray v. Angell , 16 R.I. 692 ( 1890 )