Mark Quillen v. Mary Macera
160 A.3d 1006
| R.I. | 2017Background
- Decedent Domenic Zubiago owned two Amica annuities; one (~$360,000) is at issue. Both originally named his sister Emelia as beneficiary; after Emelia died, Zubiago executed change-of-beneficiary forms naming his sister Mary Macera.
- Plaintiff Mark Quillen (grandnephew) testified he was told in 2004 that Zubiago would put him on an account and later learned he had been named beneficiary; after Zubiago later changed beneficiaries, Quillen claimed he was improperly disinherited.
- Amica employees testified Zubiago requested blank change-of-beneficiary forms and authorized Amica to deal with his sister Mary due to his speech impediment; Zubiago signed forms witnessed and recorded by Amica.
- Mary Macera testified she sometimes placed calls for her brother but denied reading or altering the beneficiary forms beyond filling in her own identifying information at his request.
- Quillen sued after Zubiago’s 2013 death alleging forgery, fraud, misrepresentation, lack of testamentary intent, and (amended at trial) mistake/inadvertence; the Superior Court found for Macera after a nonjury trial and denied a new trial.
- On appeal the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, deferring to the trial justice’s credibility findings and concluding the record supported deliberate estate planning by Zubiago rather than mistake, undue influence, or a shifted burden of proof.
Issues
| Issue | Quillen's Argument | Macera's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether change-of-beneficiary was the product of mistake/lack of testamentary intent | Quillen: forms (blank) and testimony show Zubiago lacked intent to disinherit him; change may have been inadvertent | Macera: Zubiago deliberately planned his estate, personally spoke to Amica, executed witnessed forms, and trusted Macera but did not rely on her for estate decisions | Held: No error — trial justice found deliberate intent; insufficient proof of mistake/inadvertence |
| Whether trial justice applied wrong legal standard (undue influence vs. mistake) | Quillen: trial justice focused on undue influence rather than absence of testamentary intent | Macera: facts support application of contract/estate principles and credibility findings | Held: Court found trial justice considered mistake claim and properly applied law; no misapplication |
| Whether trial justice misstated evidence about form type (preprinted vs. blank) and overlooked material evidence | Quillen: form was blank, which supports mistake; trial justice mischaracterized it as preprinted | Macera: characterization error is immaterial to credibility and subsequent conduct over three years | Held: Trial justice acknowledged mischaracterization but ruled it did not change the outcome; affirmed |
| Whether law-of-the-case or judicial notice required adopting prior preliminary-injunction findings | Quillen: preliminary-injunction hearing judge found prima facie mistake, so those findings should control | Macera: preliminary ruling was interlocutory, on a different record and issue (injunction), not merits | Held: Court refused to apply law of the case or judicial notice of interlocutory factual findings; later fuller record controlled |
Key Cases Cited
- Gregoire v. Baird Properties, LLC, 138 A.3d 182 (R.I. 2016) (appellate deference to trial justice findings; clearly erroneous standard)
- South County Post & Beam, Inc. v. McMahon, 116 A.3d 204 (R.I. 2015) (weight accorded to credibility determinations)
- Illinois State Trust Co. v. Conaty, 104 F. Supp. 729 (D.R.I. 1952) (testamentary gifts not invalid for mistake absent fraud, undue influence, or lack of testamentary intent)
- Curreri v. Saint, 126 A.3d 482 (R.I. 2015) (scope of judicial notice as to court records and what aspects are indisputable)
- Chavers v. Fleet Bank (RI), N.A., 844 A.2d 666 (R.I. 2004) (law-of-the-case doctrine and its purpose in maintaining stability of interlocutory rulings)