Dauray v. Mee
109 A.3d 832
| R.I. | 2015Background
- Dauray appeals three Superior Court dismissals for lack of standing in actions contesting Gabrielle Mee’s estate and related trust gifts.
- Trial court granted summary judgment against Dauray on standing grounds under G.L.1956 § 33-18-17 and common law.
- Courts found Dauray, as a potential heir, had no injury in fact because intestacy could not occur due to a valid residuary clause directing assets to a charity framework.
- The trust/estate instruments largely direct assets to charitable entities linked to the Legion of Christ, limiting any potential personal pecuniary interest for Dauray.
- Dauray sought to amend her probate appeal to include fraud claims; the trial court conditioned and then awarded, later vacated, attorneys’ fees.
- The Court affirms in part and vacates in part, ultimately upholding the lack of standing and vacating the fee ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing via intestate succession | Dauray would inherit if intestacy results | No injury in fact; no potential inheritance | Lacks standing; no injury in fact; intestacy not possible |
| Statutory standing under § 33-18-17 | As next of kin, can recover for the estate | No legally interested party; gifts go to charities | No standing under § 33-18-17; not a legally interested party |
| Residuary clause mischaracterization and impact on standing | Residuary clause could lapse if the 1991 will is invalid | Residuary clause directs to a trust, not heirs; no impact if 1991 valid | No standing; residuary clause would not create an aggrieved party |
| Attorneys’ fees as condition for amendment of appeal | Fees not authorized; violates American Rule | Statutory authority; within trial court discretion | Abused discretion; vacate fee award; affirm judgment on standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Spooner v. Tucker, 86 R.I. 266, 184 A.2d 403 (Rhode Island 1957) (heir-at-law standing related to intestacy and aggrievement)
- Insana v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co., 110 R.I. 476, 294 A.2d 181 (Rhode Island 1972) (intervention requires an interest and being aggrieved)
- In re Estate Prynn, 315 A.2d 265 (Pa. 1974) (heirs without interest cannot contest if no benefit)
- Batt v. Vittum, 30 N.E.2d 394 (Mass. 1940) (residuary clause considerations and standing of heirs-at-law)
- In re Carothers’ Estate, 300 Pa. 185, 150 A. 585 (Pa. 1930) (standing when residuary interests determine aggrievement)
- In re Estate Molera, 23 Cal.App.3d 993, 100 Cal.Rptr. 696 (Cal. App. 1972) (heir-at-law cannot contest to benefit delimited by residuary terms)
- Glocester Manton Free Public Library of Glocester v. Industrial Nat’l Bank, 107 R.I. 161, 265 A.2d 724 (Rhode Island 1970) (intestacy avoidance favored; residuary clauses govern)