213 A.3d 417
R.I.2019Background
- Augusta Hathaway created a living trust (1992) and an A.P. Hathaway Family Limited Partnership; a 1997 equalization clause aimed to ensure roughly equal distributions among her three daughters.
- In 2000–2001 Hathaway amended the trust and made partnership gifts shifting most assets (including the house) toward her youngest daughter, Marion Louttit; amendments included conditioning other daughters’ trust benefits on transferring partnership interests to Marion and added a no‑contest clause.
- Hathaway moved to assisted living and was hospitalized after a 2000 suicide attempt; medical records diagnosed mild Alzheimer’s/dementia and documented major cognitive and financial-management deficits.
- Wenda Branson (middle daughter) sued after Hathaway’s 2008 death seeking to void the 2000–2001 gifts and amendments for undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity, and alleging breach of fiduciary duty by Marion (trustee).
- A 2014 jury found undue influence, lack of testamentary capacity, and breach of fiduciary duty, awarding $441,290 to the trust. The trial justice later granted JMOL on fiduciary duty (no proven damages) but denied JMOL/new trial on undue influence and capacity. Both parties appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Laches (timeliness) | Branson: suit timely; no prejudice to Marion from delay | Louttit: Branson waited until after Hathaway’s death; Marion lost chance to have Augusta testify | Court: Laches not proven—no demonstrable prejudice to defendant; defense fails |
| Undue influence | Branson: medical records and expert show Hathaway was susceptible and Marion dominated decision‑making; transactions void | Louttit: evidence insufficient; relied on attorney Davis and Hathaway’s intent to keep house in family | Court: Affirmed jury verdict; substantial evidence of susceptibility, opportunity, and conduct supporting undue influence |
| Testamentary capacity | Branson: Hathaway lacked capacity when amendments/gifts executed | Louttit: Evidence supports capacity; challenge weight of expert testimony | Court: Moot as to disposition because undue influence voided instruments; court did not decide capacity issue further |
| Breach of fiduciary duty & damages; effect of excessive damages | Branson: Marion diverted $10,000 and paid fees, causing trust harm | Louttit: No damages proven given equalization clause; excessive jury award suggests passion/prejudice warranting new trial | Court: JMOL for Marion on breach (no legally cognizable damages because equalization clause cures alleged diversions); excessive damages do not require new trial on other issues; grant of new trial on fiduciary count vacated as unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Filippi v. Filippi, 818 A.2d 608 (R.I. 2003) (standard for reviewing JMOL and when equitable claims may not entitle parties to jury trial)
- Bajakian v. Erinakes, 880 A.2d 843 (R.I. 2005) (trial justice’s new‑trial rulings afforded great weight and deference to credibility assessments)
- Bettez v. Bettez, 114 A.3d 82 (R.I. 2015) (definition and fact‑intensive analysis of undue influence)
- Azar v. Town of Lincoln, 173 A.3d 862 (R.I. 2017) (de novo standard for JMOL review)
- Yammerino v. Cranston Tennis Club, Inc., 416 A.2d 698 (R.I. 1980) (excessive damages can taint jury verdicts, possibly requiring new trial when prejudice shown)