249 A.3d 1254
R.I.2021Background
- Decedent John P. Garan’s 2014 will named Laurel Conway executrix; surviving spouse Virginia Garan challenged the will on undue influence/testamentary capacity grounds.
- Pawtucket Probate Court admitted the will and appointed Conway; written probate decision entered September 7, 2017.
- Virginia filed two near-identical claims of appeal in the probate clerk’s office within the 20-day window; both claim forms included printed language: “request[s] a certified copy of said claim.”
- An agent obtained certified copies from the probate clerk on October 4, 2017; certified copy of the (operative) second claim was filed in Superior Court with reasons of appeal on October 6, within the 30-day window.
- Conway moved for summary judgment in Superior Court, arguing Garan failed to perfect her appeal under G.L. § 33-23-1 by not timely requesting/payment for a certified copy; the Superior Court granted the motion.
- The Supreme Court reviewed de novo and reversed, holding disputed facts existed about the request/payment and that the record supported perfection of the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Garan) | Defendant's Argument (Conway) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Garan filed a timely written request for a certified copy under § 33-23-1(a)(1) | The claim form itself expressly requested a certified copy; that satisfies the statute and raises a factual dispute | No competent evidence shows a timely written request for certification of the operative (second) claim | Reversed Superior Court: the claim forms’ language and competing affidavits create a genuine factual dispute; summary judgment improper |
| Whether Garan timely paid required clerk fees for certification within the 20-day window | Receipts and an affidavit show fees were paid (including a $1.50 receipt and alleged $10 payment); some fees were paid within 20 days and certified copy was later produced | No proof fees for the second (operative) claim were paid within the statutory period; strict compliance is required | Reversed: record shows some payments and clerk practice of issuing certified copies same day; factual disputes preclude summary judgment and appeal was perfected |
Key Cases Cited
- Glassie v. Doucette, 157 A.3d 1092 (R.I. 2017) (summary-judgment standard)
- Ims v. Audette, 40 A.3d 236 (R.I. 2012) (probate-appeal prerequisites are jurisdictional; strict compliance)
- Lett v. Giuliano, 35 A.3d 870 (R.I. 2012) (good‑faith efforts to comply with probate-record requirements)
- Duffy v. Estate of Scire, 111 A.3d 358 (R.I. 2015) (clear, explicit request for record can satisfy requirement)
- Kelley v. Jepson, 811 A.2d 119 (R.I. 2002) (filing claim and requesting certified copy satisfies § 33-23-1(a)(1))
- Mendes v. Factor, 41 A.3d 994 (R.I. 2012) (purpose of reasons of appeal: notice and issue limitation)
- Griggs v. Estate of Griggs, 845 A.2d 1006 (R.I. 2004) (statutory time limits for probate appeals cannot be extended)
- Dugdale v. Chase, 157 A. 430 (R.I. 1931) (statutory procedure for probate appeals requires strict compliance)
- In re Estate of Chelo, 209 A.3d 1181 (R.I. 2019) (clear statutes are applied literally)