111 A.3d 358
R.I.2015Background
- In Feb. 2009 Joyce Duffy and Donna O’Reilly petitioned Warwick Probate Court for a guardian for their father; temporary guardianship was later dismissed and the petition for a permanent guardian denied (Dec. 13, 2010).
- Plaintiffs filed a claim of appeal in Probate on Dec. 30, 2010 and requested a certified probate record and cost estimate; the Superior Court certified-record deadline was Jan. 12, 2011.
- The Probate Clerk did not provide the cost estimate until Jan. 13, 2011; plaintiffs paid on Jan. 20, 2011 and had filed a Superior Court complaint and a motion to extend time earlier.
- The Superior Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to extend and dismissed the appeal for failure to perfect the record under G.L. § 33‑23‑1; plaintiffs then moved for relief under G.L. § 9‑21‑6 (excusable neglect), which the Superior Court denied.
- This Court twice remanded for factual hearings on whether there was a probate‑office backlog; the Superior Court found the probate officials credible and that nothing prevented timely production.
- The Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court judgment, held the plaintiffs demonstrated excusable neglect because the late cost estimate and the probate clerk’s role made the filing delay not within plaintiffs’ reasonable control, and remanded for a merits hearing under § 9‑21‑6.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs failed to comply with § 33‑23‑1 record‑transmission deadlines | Plaintiffs tried to comply and the delay in producing the certified record was caused by the Probate Clerk’s office | Plaintiffs were inattentive and failed to perfect the appeal; deadlines are jurisdictional and mandatory | Court held plaintiffs failed to meet § 33‑23‑1 but that this failure alone did not preclude relief under § 9‑21‑6 given excusable neglect |
| Whether Superior Court could extend deadlines under § 33‑23‑1(c) or otherwise excuse noncompliance | Plaintiffs sought extension and offered substantial materials; requested relief when transcript unavailable | Defendant argued § 33‑23‑1(a) deadlines are jurisdictional per § 33‑23‑1(e) and cannot be extended except as specified | Court reiterated strict, jurisdictional nature of § 33‑23‑1 deadlines and limited extension authority to § 33‑23‑1(c) but treated that as separate from § 9‑21‑6 relief |
| Whether plaintiffs met burden for relief under § 9‑21‑6 (excusable neglect) | Delay was caused by probate clerk’s late response to a timely written request for the certified record and cost; plaintiffs could not copy the record themselves | Plaintiffs were not diligent (waited 17 of 30 days, made insufficient follow‑up); Superior Court credibility findings favored probate staff | Court held plaintiffs established excusable neglect: delay was not due to plaintiffs’ carelessness but to circumstances outside their reasonable control (probate clerk delay), so § 9‑21‑6 relief should be allowed |
| Standard and deference on review of Superior Court denial of § 9‑21‑6 relief | Plaintiffs urged equitable, liberal construction of § 9‑21‑6 and review de novo on statutory construction plus deference to factual findings only | Defendant relied on precedent requiring deference to Superior Court factfinding and a strict excusable‑neglect standard | Majority concluded equitable factors supported relief despite Superior Court findings; dissent argued majority insufficiently deferred to trial factfinder and relaxed excusable‑neglect standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Ims v. Audette, 40 A.3d 236 (R.I. 2012) (holds § 33‑23‑1 deadlines are jurisdictional and require strict compliance)
- In re Estate of Speight, 739 A.2d 229 (R.I. 1999) (failure to meet probate appeal deadlines cannot be waived)
- Lett v. Giuliano, 35 A.3d 870 (R.I. 2012) (distinguishes single‑transcript lapse from failure to supply essential record materials)
- In re Estate of Griggs, 63 A.3d 867 (R.I. 2013) (Griggs II) (rejects piecemeal supplementation of probate record; parties must supply substantial portion initially)
- Kelley v. Jepson, 811 A.2d 119 (R.I. 2002) (§ 9‑21‑6 is the exclusive remedy to seek relief for missed probate deadlines)
- Pleasant Management, LLC v. Carrasco, 960 A.2d 216 (R.I. 2008) (excusable‑neglect analysis is equitable and fact‑specific)
- Boranian v. Richer, 983 A.2d 834 (R.I. 2009) (tests excusable neglect against what a reasonably prudent person would do; includes control‑of‑delay factor)
- Astors’ Beechwood v. People Coal Co., 659 A.2d 1109 (R.I. 1995) (defines excusable neglect by adopting Black’s Law Dictionary formulation)
- Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1993) (factors for excusable neglect include reason for delay and whether within movant’s control)