Sup re m e Co u rt

No. 2011

- 262

- App e a l.

( KP 07

- 1217)

I n r e Est a te o f Ann M a r ie P i c illo e t a l. :

NO T I C E : This opinion is subj ec t to f o r m a l re vision b ef o r e

publi ca tion in the R hode I sl a nd R e po r t e r

. R ea d er s a r e r e qu e st e d to

noti f y the Opinion An a l y st, S up re me C ou r t of R hode I sl a n d

, 250 B e n e f it S t ree t, P r ovid e n ce

, R hode I sl a nd 02 9 03, a t T e l e phone

222

- 3258 of a n y t y p o g r a phi ca l or oth e r f o r m a l e rr o r s in o r d e r th a t

c o rr e c tions m a y b e m a de b ef o r e t h e opinion is publish e d.Sup re m e Co u rt

No. 2011

- 262

- App e a l.

( KP 07

- 1217)

- 1 I n r e Est a te o f Ann M a r ie P i c illo e t a l. :

P re s e nt: S utt e ll, C

. J ., G o ldb er g

, F l a h er t y

, R obinson, a nd I nd e g li a

, JJ.

O P I N I O N

J u s t i c e G ol db er g, f or t h e Co u rt

. This ca se ca me b ef o r e the S up r e me C ou r t on

S e pt e mb e r 24, 2014, on a pp ea l b y M i c h ae l J

. P i c illo (c ont e st a nt) fr om a S up er ior C ou r t

jud g m e nt, d e c l ar i n g t h a t the h e i r s

- a t

- l a w 1 of Ann M ar ie P i c illo ( the d e ce d e nt or the t e st a t r i x )

fa il e d to p r ove th a t the t e st a t r ix l ac k e d t e st a m e nt a r y c a p ac i t y to e x ec ute a w ill a nd fa il e d to p r o v e

th a t the will w a s the p r o du c t of undue in f lu e n ce

. The c ont e st a nt, who a pp eare d b e f o r e the C ou r t

p r o s e

, a ss er ts th a t the t r i a l justi c e erre d b y : ( 1) f a iling to c onsid e r wh e th e r the will w a s e x ec ut ed

in c ompli a n c e with G

. L

. 1956 § 33

- 5

- 5; ( 2 ) c o n c luding th a t the will w a s n ot the p r odu c t of undue

in f lu e n ce ; ( 3) f inding the d e ce d e nt h a d t h e r e qu i site t e st a m e nt a r y ca p ac i t y to e x ec ute t h e will;

a nd ( 4) fa iling to m a ke a pp r op r i a te f indin g s of f a c t re qui re d b y R ule 52 (a ) of the S up er ior C ou r t

R ul e s of C iv i l P r o ce du re

. B eca use we a r e of the opinion th a t the t r i a l jus t i c e c ommitt e d no err o r

,

we a f f i r m the jud g m e nt.

1 O r i g in a l l y e i g ht of the d ece d e nt ’ s h e i r s

- a t

- l a w

— B ea t r i c e P i c illo, C a t h y P i c illo, K e nn e th T.

P i c illo, J r ., Mi c h ae l J

. P i c illo, Ra y mond P i c illo, J r

., R ob er t S

. P i c i l l o

, W arre n P i c illo, a nd

M ar i a nn D e l F ino

— a p p e a l e d the P r o b a te C ou r t d e c ision. How e v er , on l y Mi c h ae l, c on t e st a nt, h a s

a pp ea l e d t h e S up er ior C o u r t jud g m e nt.- 2

- F a c t s a n d T r av el

On Nov e mb e r 11, 2004, the d ece d e nt e x ec ut e d h e r l a st will a nd t e st a m e nt. S he di e d on

Nov e mb e r 21, 2004. T h e d ece d e nt n e v e r m arr i e d a nd h a d no c hild re n; she w a s p re d ec e a s e d b y

f

our b r oth e r s, h e r on l y siblin g s. T h e h e i r s

- a t

- l a w c onsist e d of the d ece d e nt ’ s ni e c e s a nd

n e ph e ws, i n c luding c on t e st a nt, f or whom, the r e c o r d r e v e a l e d, she h a d l ittle or no r e g ar d. In

acc o r d a n c e with h e r o f t

- spok e n di rec tion, the will b e qu ea th e d nothi n g to the h e i r s

- a t

- l a w.

R a th er

, the will n a m e d M ar ia C h r istina C a st e ll a nos Mu r i e l ( Mu r i e l or pr opon e nt )

, h e r in

- home

car e g i v er

, a nd R i c h a r d L. W a lsh, II I ( Atto r n e y W a lsh )

, h e r lo n g

- time a tto r n e y

, a s c o

- e x ec uto r s;

d e vis e d to Mu r i e l h e r home a nd a r e nt a l p r o p er t y n e x t doo r ; a nd b e qu ea th e d cer t a in b a nk

acc ounts a s w e ll a s the r e m a ind e r of h e r e st a te to Di a ne Mun r oe ( Mu n r o e )

, h e r lo n g

- time fr i e nd

a nd f o r m e r n e i g hbo r

. 2

On D ece mb e r 6, 2004, a p e tition f or p r ob a te of the d ece d e nt ’ s will w a s f i l e d in W ar wi c k

P r ob a te C ou r t. A f t e r a l e n g t h y c ont e st th a t c h a ll e n g e d t h e v a lidi t y o f the i nst r um e nt, the will w a s

a dmitt e d to p r ob a te on O c tob e r 4, 2007. T h e c ont e st a nt, a long with the re m a ining h e i r s

- a t

- l a w,

tim e l y a pp e a l e d to the S up er ior C ou r t, a ll e g ing t h a t a t the time she e x ec ut e d the inst r um e nt, the

t e st a t r ix l ac k e d t e st a m e n t a r y c a p ac i t y a nd t h a t t h e will w a s p r o c u re d b y t he undue in f lu e n c e of

Mu r i e l a nd Mun r o e

.

A S up er ior C ou r t b e n c h t r i a l w a s h e ld in Nov e mb e r a nd D ece m b e r 2 0 10. Atto r n e y

W a lsh, the a tto r n e y who d raf t e d the will a nd w a s n a m e d a s c o

- e x ec uto r

, t e sti f i e d th a t he h ad

re p re s e nt e d the d e ce d e nt in l e g a l m a tt er s f r om 1986 until h e r d ea th. Atto r n e y W a lsh a v e rre d th at

he b e g a n dis c ussi n g the d ece d e nt ’ s will with his c li e nt in 1993 a nd did s o a g a in in 2003. H e

not e d th a t, b y 2003, t h e t e st a t r ix w a s b e d r idd e n a nd th a t, in 2004, h e r l e g w a s a mput a t e d.

2 Althou g h the will in c lud e d b e qu e sts to oth er s, th o se p r ovisions ar e not r e l e v a nt to this opinion.- 3

- Atto r n e y W a lsh t e sti f i e d th a t the t e st a t r ix indi ca t e d to him on mo r e th a n one o cca sion th a t she

did not w a nt h e r ni ece s a nd n e ph e ws to re c e ive a n y thi n g fr om h e r e st a t e

. He t e sti f i e d th a t, on

O c tob e r 18, 2004, he m e t with the d ece d e nt to di s c uss h e r e st a te pl a ns a nd th a t, on th a t o cca sio n

,

she m a de s e v era l c h a n g e s to the d raf t he h a d b e e n p re p ar i n g

. D u r ing t h a t m ee tin g

, the t e s t a t r ix

told him th a t, in a dditi o n to r h e um a toid ar th r itis, she h a d b ee n di a g no s e d with a re spi ra to r y

dis ea se a nd e x p ec t e d to live f or on l y th r e e or f our months. This d i a g nosis, acc o r di n g to Atto r n e y

W a lsh, w a s the rea son she d e si re d to f in a li z e h e r will. B a s e d on th a t dis c u ssion, Atto r n e y W a lsh

p re p a r e d a noth e r d r a f t of the will a nd d e liv ere d it t o the d ece d e nt on O c tob e r 27, 2004.

Atto r n e y W a lsh a lso t e sti f i e d a bout the d ece d e nt ’ s re l a tionship with Mu r i e l. A c c o r di n g

to Atto r n e y W a lsh, Mu r i e l h a d b ee n in a nd out of the r oom du r ing the O c t o b e r 18, 2004 m ee tin g

,

a nd he obs e r v e d w h a t he c h a rac t e r i z e d a s a n “ e mpl o yer [

- ] e mpl o ye e r e l a tionship” b e tw ee n the

d ece d e nt a nd Mu r i e l. Atto r n e y W a lsh a lso dis c uss e d c onv er s a tions he h a d with the d ece d e nt

c on cer ni n g Mu r i e l. The t e st a t r ix d is c los e d th a t, o v e r the l a st y ea r a nd a h a lf of h e r li fe

, she h ad

g r o wn to h a ve g rea t a ff e c tion f or Mu r i e l, who h a d p r ovid e d h e r with c onsid era ble c are

, su c h th a t

she h a d c ome to c onsi d e r Mu r i e l a nd h e r two sons a s h e r f a mi l y

.

N e x t, Atto r n e y W a lsh t e sti f i e d th a t, on Nov e mb e r 10, 2004, the t e st a t r ix c ont ac t e d him

a nd re qu e st e d th a t he c o me to h e r house the f ollowing d a y in o r d e r to f in a li z e h e r will. Althou g h

he initi a l l y w a s un a v a i l a ble on Nov e mb e r 11, 2004, Atto r n e y W a lsh did s e e his c li e nt th at

e v e ni n g

. Atto r n e y W a l s h t e sti f i e d th a t he m e t w ith his c li e nt

— in p r iv a t e

— f or tw e n t y to thi r t y

minut e s; th a t he f ound h e r to be a l er t, a w a k e

, a nd sp ea king c l e a r l y ; a nd th a t she did not a pp ea r to

be und e r the in f lu e n c e o f a n y m e di c a tion. He th e n l ef t to f in a li z e the will a nd re tu r n e d with th r e e

witn e ss e s. The t e st a t r ix e x ec ut e d the will th a t n i g ht. Atto r n e y W a lsh t e sti f i e d th a t it w a s his

b e li e f th a t the t e st a t r ix h a d the re quisite t e st a m e n t a r y ca p ac i t y to e x ec ute t he will a nd th a t he did- 4

- not c onsid e r h e r to b e u n d e r du r e ss or subj e c t to t he undue in f l u e n c e of a n y o n e

, in c luding Mu r i el

a nd Mun r o e

.

Two of the th r e e subs cr i bing witn e ss e s to the w i ll a lso t e sti f i e d a t t r i a l, S t e v e n P a g a no

( P a g a no) a nd Atto r n e y W a lsh ’ s moth er , N a n c y W a lsh ( M r s. W a lsh )

. 3 B oth P a g a no a nd M r s.

W a lsh t e sti f i e d th a t the d ece d e nt ’ s re spons e s du r ing the r e a ding o f the w ill w er e c l e a r a nd th a t

she did not a p p ea r to h a v e p r obl e ms un d er st a ndi n g Atto r n e y W a lsh w h e n he r e a d the will to h er

.

B oth Pa g a no a nd M r s. W a lsh st a t e d th a t th e y h e ar d the d e ce d e nt a nsw e r “ y e s” to a ll of Atto r n e y

W a lsh ’ s qu e stions a nd th a t eac h witn e ss e d h e r e x ec ute the will in th e ir p re s e n ce

.

N e x t, J a ne I llu zz i ( M r s. I llu zz i )

, a hospi c e nu r se who m a de r e g ul a r visits to the

d ece d e nt ’ s home in No v e mb e r of 2004, t e sti f i e d. A cc o r ding to M r s. I ll u zz i, the t e st a t r i x h a d

e x p re ss e d to h e r how h a p p y she w a s to h a ve Mu r i e l car i n g f or h er

. M r s. I llu zz i a lso t e sti f i e d th a t

the d ece d e nt told h e r th a t she did not w a nt h e r own fa mi l y to t a ke a n y thing f r om h e r e st a t e a nd

th a t she w a n t e d to n a me Mu r i e l a s o n e of t h e b e n ef i c i ar i e s. L a st l y

, M r s. I llu zz i t e sti f i e d a bout

the e v e nts of No v e mb e r 11, 2004. S he st a t e d th a t

, a lthou g h mo r phine h a d b ee n a dminist ere d t h a t

d a y , t h e t e st a t r ix non e th e l e ss a pp ea r e d a l e r t a nd o r i e nt e d a nd w a s n e v e r d e li r ious.

M r s. I llu zz i ’ s d a u g h t er

- in

- l a w, E r in I llu zz i ( Atto r n e y I llu zz i )

, a lso t e sti f i e d a t t r i a l.

App are nt l y

, Atto r n e y I l l u zz i h a d b ee n summon e d b y the d e ce d e nt on N o v e mb e r 11, 2004 wh en

she w a s un a ble to r e a c h Atto r n e y W a lsh. Atto r n e y I llu zz i t e sti f i e d t h a t she m e t with the

d ece d e nt f or the f i r st time a t 2 p.m. on No v e mb e r 11, 2004, to dis c uss h e r will a nd th a t, d u r i n g

this m ee tin g

, the d e ce d e nt und er stood h e r qu e st i ons, a nsw e r e d th e m a p p r op r i a t e l y

, a nd did not

a pp ea r to b e und e r the i n f lu e n c e o f a n y t y pe of m e di ca tion. Atto r n e y I llu z z i a lso st a t e d th a t the

d ece d e nt h a d dis c los e d t o h e r th a t she did not c a r e f or h e r ni e c e s a nd n e p h e ws a nd th a t th e y w er e

3 The thi r d witn e ss to the e x ec ution of the d ece d e n t ’ s will, R i c h ar d L

. W a l s h, J r ., did not t e s t i f y

a t t r i a l; he h a d p a ss e d a w a y

.- 5

- to re c e ive nothi n g

. H o w e v er

, Atto r n e y I llu zz i a lso t e sti f i e d th a t, af t e r h a ving m e t with h e r f o r

a lmost th re e hou r s, the t e st a t r ix b e g a n to ti r e a nd “ g ra du a l l y b r e a k down” a nd h a d t r ouble

a nsw er i n g h e r qu e stions. S he t e sti f i e d th a t, du r ing h e r m ee ti n g with the d ece d e nt, Mu r i e l a nd

Mun r oe t r i e d to re mind the d ece d e nt of sp e c i f ic it e ms a nd acc ounts th a t she h a d told th e m she

would l ea ve to th e m. A tto r n e y I llu zz i t e sti f i e d th a t, a t th a t point, she h a d qu e stions a bout the

d ece d e nt ’ s ca p ac i t y a nd d ec id e d to l ea v e

, but she a dd e d th a t she h a d b ee n willing to re tu r n l a t e r

th a t e v e ni n g or the n e x t mo r ning to f i n a li z e the w ill. Hill a r y S ulliv a n ( S ulliv a n ) , a p ara l e g a l, w as

a lso a t the Nov e mb e r 1 1, 2004 m ee ti n g b e tw e e n Atto r n e y I llu zz i a nd the d e ce d e nt, a nd s h e

t e sti f i e d

— b y w a y of d e p osition

— th a t the d ece d e nt h a d b ee n in a d a z e a nd h a d t r ouble a nsw e r ing

qu e stions du r ing the e nti r e m ee ti n g , not just a t the e nd.

Do c tor J a m e s B u rr ill (D r

. B u rr ill) t e sti f i e d a s a n e x p er t witn e ss on b e h a lf of the h e i r s

- a t

l a w. H a vi n g r e vi e w e d t he d e ce d e nt ’ s hospi c e r e c o r ds, D r

. B u rr ill t e sti f i e d a bout the e f fec ts of

mo rphine the t e st a t r ix r e ce iv e d in the tw e n t y

- f our hou r s p r ior to Nov e mb e r 11, 2004. A cc o r ding

to D r

. B u r r ill, b a s e d on the a mount of mo rphine the d ece d e nt pu r po r t e d l y w a s a dminist ere d

—

th re e dos e s in a t w e n t y

- f ou r

- hour sp a n

— it w a s h is opinion th a t she would h a ve b e e n d e li r ious

wh e n she e x ec ut e d h e r w ill.

Mu r i e l t e sti f i e d n e x t a nd dis c uss e d, a mong oth e r thin g s, h e r f i r st

- h a nd kn o wl e dge th a t the

a mount of mo r phine s e t f o r th in the d e ce d e nt ’ s h ospi c e r e c o r ds h a d not b ee n a dminist e r e d to the

t e st a t r ix a nd th a t she h a d n e v e r b e e n g i v e n mo r e t h a n one dose in a d a y

. 4 Mu r i e l d e s cr ib e d h e r

re l a tionship with the d e c e d e nt a s h a vi n g g r own fr om th a t of a n e mpl o y e r

- e mpl o y e e to a p er so n al

a nd c a r i n g r e l a tionship. B y No v e mb e r 2004, M u r i e l w a s p a y i n g r e nt a nd living in a n a p a r tm e nt

4 Th e r e w a s t e stimo n y t h a t the d ece d e nt would be f o r ce d fr om h e r ho m e a nd into a hospi c e

fac ili t y i f she w a s not giv e n mo rphin e ; thus, a s the d e ce d e nt wish e d to re m a in in h e r hom e

, Mu r i e l a nd Mun r o e r e c o r d e d in the d ece d e nt ’ s h o spi c e r e c o r ds th a t s h e r ec e iv e d mo r e m o r phine

th a n the a mount th a t ac t u a l l y h a d b ee n a dminist ere d.- 6

- own e d b y the d ece d e nt. S he w a s c ar i n g f or the d e ce d e nt d a i l y

, in c ludi n g f a mi l y din n er s with h e r

fa mi l y a nd t h e d e c e d e nt on a ni g ht l y b a sis.

L a st l y

, Mun r o e

, the d ec e d e nt ’ s f o r m e r n e i g hb o r a nd long

- t er m f r i e nd, t e sti f i e d. H er

t e stimo n y c o rr obo r a t e d th a t of Mu r i e l c on cer ni n g the a mount of mo rphine a dminist ere d in the

tw e n t y

- f our ho u r s p r e c e ding t h e e x ec ution of the will. Mun r oe a l so t e sti f i e d a bout the

re l a tionship b e tw e e n the t e st a t r ix a nd Mu r i e l, st a ting t h a t she tho u g ht the d ece d e nt lov e d Mu r i el

like a d a u g ht e r

. S he a lso t e sti f i e d a bout the d ece d e nt ’ s d e m e a nor on No v e mb e r 11, 2004, st a ti n g

th a t she a pp e a re d to und e r st a nd e v e r y thi n g th a t t o ok pl ac e w h e n she e x ec u t e d the will.

The t r i a l justi c e issu e d a w r itt e n d e c ision a nd f o und th a t the d e c e d e nt h a d the r e quisite

t e st a m e nt a r y c a p ac i t y w h e n she e x ec ut e d the wi l l a nd th a t the will w a s not the p r odu c t of undue

in f lu e n ce . T h e c ont e st a n t a pp ea l e d.

S t a nd a r d o f R e vi e w

“ A cc o r ding to our w e ll s e ttl e d ‘ra is e [

- ] o r [

- ] w a iv e ’ r ul e

, if a n issue w a s n o t p re s er v e d b y

sp ec i f ic ob j ec tion a t t r i a l

, th e n it m a y not be c on s id ere d on a p p ea l.” S t a te v. P on a

, 66 A.3d 454,

468 ( R

. I

. 2013) ( quoting S t a te v. M c M a nus

, 990 A.2d 1229, 1237 ( R

. I

. 2 010 ))

. “ W e re qui r e a

sp ec i f ic obj ec tion so th a t the a ll e g a tion of e r r or ca n be b r ou g ht to the a tt e ntion of the t r i a l justi ce

,

who will th e n h a ve a n o p po r tuni t y to r ule on it.” I d.

Addition a l l y

, “ [ i ] t is w e ll e st a blish e d th a t the f a c tu a l f indin g s o f a t r i a l justi c e sitting

without a ju r y ar e acc or d e d g rea t w e i g ht a nd wi l l not be distu r b e d unl e ss the rec o r d shows th a t

the f indin g s c l ear l y a r e w r ong o r the t r i a l justi c e o v er look e d or mis c on c e i v e d m a t er i a l e vi d e n ce

. ”

P r o ce ss E n g in e er s & C onst r u c to r s, I n c

. v. Di G r e g o r io, I n c

. , 93 A.3d 1 047, 1051 ( R

. I

. 201 4 )

( quoting W e llin g ton C o n dominium Asso c i a tion v. W e llin g ton C ove C ond o minium Asso c i a tion

,

68 A.3d 594, 599 ( R

. I

. 2013 ))

. “ I f

, a s we r e vi e w the rec o r d, it b ec om e s c l ea r to us th a t ‘ the- 7

- rec o r d indi ca t e s th a t c o mp e t e nt e vid e n c e supp o r ts the t r i a l justi ce’ s f indin g s, w e sh a ll not

substitute our vi e w of t he e vid e n c e f o r [ his or h er s] * * *. ’ ” I d. a t 10 5 2 ( quoting W e llin g ton

C ondominium Asso c i a t i on , 68 A.3d a t 599 ).

A n alysis

S t a t u t o r y R e qu i r e me n t s

F i r st, c ont e st a nt a r g u e s th a t p r opon e nt fa il e d to e st a blish th a t the will w a s e x ec ut ed

acc o r di n g to the re qu i re m e nts of § 33

- 5

- 5 of the G e n e ra l L a ws. Althou g h c ont e st a nt

ac knowl e d g e s th a t e vid e n c e w a s submitt e d to the t r i a l c ou r t th a t the subs cr ibing witn e ss e s w er e

p re s e nt wh e n the d e c e d e nt e x ec ut e d the will, he c ont e nds th a t this t e sti m o n y w a s not sp ec i f ic

e nou g h to s a tis f y the st a tuto r y re qui r e m e nts of § 33

- 5

- 5 a nd th a t, th eref o re

, p r opon e nt fa il e d to

e st a blish th a t the subs cr i bing witn e ss e s w e r e ac t u a l l y “ in the p re s e n ce ” of the t e st a t r ix a nd each

oth e r w h e n she e x ec ut e d the will. T h e c ont e st a nt a ss er ts t h a t the d ec ision w a s “ a bsolut e l y sil e nt

with re sp e c t to [ this] is s u e ” a nd th a t the t r i a l ju s ti c e e r re d in fa ili n g “ to m a ke a f indi n g of f a c t

th a t th er e w a s in d ee d c o mpli a n c e with” § 33

- 5

- 5.

The p r opon e nt re sponds th a t this issue w a s not liti g a t e d in the P r ob a te C ou r t or the

S up er ior C ou r t. N e v er th e l e ss, p r opon e nt submits th a t su ff i c i e nt e vid e n c e w a s p r odu c e d to

s a tis f y the re qu i re m e nts of § 33

- 5

- 5. The p r opon e nt points to the t e stim o n y of Atto r n e y W a lsh

a nd two of the subs cr ibi n g witn e ss e s, Pa g a no a nd M r s. W a lsh, a s e st a blishing th a t: ( 1) w h e n the

will p r ovisions w er e r ea d to the d ece d e nt, the d e c e d e nt a g r e e d to e ac h p r ov i sion; ( 2) the d e c e d e nt

si g n e d the will h er s e lf in the p r e s e n c e o f both Pa g a no a nd M r s. W a lsh; a n d ( 3) Pa g a no a nd M r s.

W a lsh a lso si g n e d t h e w ill in the p re s e n c e of the d e c e d e nt a nd e ac h ot h er

. L a st l y

, p r opon e nt

c ont e nds th a t the t r i a l j u sti c e m a de su ff i c i e nt fa c tu a l f indin g s a s to the p r op e r e x ec ution of the

will in his w r itt e n d ec ision to d efea t this issu e

.- 8

- A f t e r c ar e f ul re vi e w o f the rec o r d in this ca s e

, w e ar e s a tis f i e d th a t the issue of wh e th e r

the will w a s e x ec ut e d in acc o r d a n c e with § 33

- 5

- 5 w a s not a r g u e d to the t r i a l justi ce

. Althou g h

in th e ir rea sons f or a p p e a l to the S up er ior C ou r t the h e i r s

- a t

- l a w a ll e g e d t h a t the will “ w a s not

e x ec ut e d acc o r ding to t h e re quisite st a tuto r y f or m a liti e s [

, ] ” n e ith e r side ra is e d this issue to t h e

t r i a l justi ce

. T h e f o c us o f the t r i a l w a s limit e d to the issu e s of und u e in f l u e n c e a nd t e s t a m e nt a r y

ca p a c i t y

, a s s e t f o r th b y c ouns e l in th e ir op e ni n g st a t e m e nts to the t r i a l justi ce

. Non e th e l e ss, we

sh a ll p r o cee d to a dd re ss t his qu e stion.

S ec tion 33

- 5

- 5 p r ovid e s i n re l e v a nt p a r t:

“ No will sh a ll be v a lid * * * unl e ss it sh a ll be in w r iting

a nd si g n e d b y the t e st a t o r

, or b y some oth e r p er s on f or him or h e r

in his or h e r p re s e n c e a n d b y his or h e r e x p re ss d i rec tion; a nd this

si g n a tu r e sh a ll be m a de or ac knowl e d g e d b y t h e t e st a tor in the

p re s e n c e of two ( 2) or mo r e witn e ss e s p re s e nt a t the s a me tim e,

a nd the witn e ss e s sh a ll a tt e st a nd sh a ll subs cr i b e the will in the

p re s e n c e of the t e st a to r

, but no f o r m of a tt e st a tion sh a ll be

n ece ss a r y

, a nd no oth e r p ubli ca tion sh a ll be n ece s s a r y .”

“ Und e r our l a w, if [ a ] will h a s b e e n s i g n e d b y [ th e ] t e st a tor a nd t h e re qui r e d numb e r of

witn e ss e s, th e r e is a p r e sumption th a t the st a tuto r y re quisit e s f or e x ec uting a will h a v e b e en

m e t.” L e tt v. Giuli a no

, 35 A.3d 870, 877 ( R

. I

. 2 0 12 )

. “ The bu r d e n of p r o of in a will c ont e st is a

p re pond e r a n c e of the e v i d e n ce

. ” P oll ar d v. H a sti n g s , 862 A.2d 770, 776 n

. 3 ( R

. I . 200 4 )

.

Th er e is nothi n g in the rec o r d b ef o r e us t h a t c a sts a n y doubt t h a t the r e qui re m e nts s et

f

o r th in § 33

- 5

- 5 w er e n o t m e t. No witn e ss or pi e c e of d o c um e nt a r y e vid e n c e e v e n s u g g e sts th a t

the will w a s not e x ec ut e d acc o r di n g to the f o r m a liti e s of the st a tut e

. Al thou g h the t r i a l justi ce

fa il e d to st a te sp ec i f i c a lly th a t the st a tuto r y f o r m a liti e s w er e m e t, he did m a ke fac t u a l f indin g s

th a t s a tis f i e d the st a tuto r y r e qui re m e nts. The t r i a l justi c e f ound the t e stim o n y of Atto r n e y W a lsh

to be “cre dible in its e nti re t y [

, ] ” noting th a t Atto r n e y W a lsh h a d “ tw e n t y

- f our y e ar s o f

e x p er i e n ce [ ] a nd h a d c o mpl e t e d upw ar ds of two hund re d wills.” Atto r n e y W a lsh t e sti f i e d th a t he- 9

- rea d the will a loud to t h e d ece d e nt, w a t c h e d h e r si g n the will, a nd th e n obs er v e d Pa g a no a nd

M r s. W a lsh si g n the will in the d ece d e nt ’ s p r e s e n c e a nd in the p re s e n c e of e a c h oth er

. T h e t r i al

justi c e a lso not e d th a t both subs cr ibing witn e ss e s t e sti f i e d th a t th e y obs e r v e d Atto r n e y W a lsh

rea d t h e will, obs er v e d t he t e st a t r ix ac knowl e d g i ng the po r tions r e a d a lo u d to h er

, a nd witn e ss ed

h e r si g ni n g the will. Th er e w a s no e vid e n c e to the c ont ra r y a nd nothing b ef o r e the C ou r t th a t

would ov erc ome the p re s umption of v a lidi t y

.

A t r i a l justi c e sitting without a ju r y n e e d not “ m a k e f indi n g s with re s p ec t to e v e r y witn e ss

or issue in whi c h ‘ a f ull und er st a ndi n g of the issu e s’ a nd the c on c lusions o f the f a c t f ind e r ‘ m a y

be re a c h e d without the a id of s e p ara t e f indin g s

. ’ ” Donn e l l y v. C owsill

, 716 A.2d 742, 747 ( R

. I

.

1998) ( quoting And er s o n v. Town of E a st G ree nwi c h

, 460 A.2d 420, 423

- 24 ( R

. I

. 1983 )).

A cc o r di n g l y

, w e re j ec t t he a r g um e nt th a t the e x ec ution of the will w a s n ot in acc o r d a n c e with

§ 33

- 5

- 5.

U ndu e I n f l u e n c e

N e x t, c ont e st a nt ar g u e s t h a t the t r i a l justi c e erre d in re j ec ting the c l a im th a t the will w a s

p r o c u re d b y undue in f lu e n ce

. Our r e vi e w of the r ec o r d re v e a ls th a t the t r i a l justi c e c ondu c t e d the

c o rr e c t a n a l y sis; he r e v i e w e d the t e stimoni a l a nd do c um e nt a r y p r oo f

, w e i g h e d the e vid e n ce,

p a ss e d on the c r e dibili t y of the witn e ss e s, a nd f o und th a t the will w a s not the p r odu c t of undue

in f lu e n ce.

Undue in f lu e n c e is the “ substitution of the will o f [ the domin a nt] p ar t y f o r the f r e e will

a nd c hoi c e [ of the subs e r vi e nt p ar t y ] .” F ilippi v. F ilippi

, 818 A.2d 608, 630 ( R

. I

. 200 3 ) ( quoting

Tinn e y v. Tin n e y

, 770 A

. 2d 420, 437

- 38 ( R

. I

. 20 0 1 ))

. W h e n d e t er mini n g wh a t c onstitut e s undue

in f lu e n ce

, “ a t r i a l justi c e o r din ar i l y e x a min e s the tot a li t y of [ th e ] c i rc um s t a n ce s, in c luding the

re l a tionship b e tw ee n t h e p ar ti e s, the p h y si ca l a nd m e nt a l c ondition of the [ subs er vi e nt p ar t y ]

, t h e- 10

- oppo r tuni t y a nd disposition of [ th e ] p er son w i e lding in f lu e n c e

, a nd his or h e r ac ts a n d

d ec l a r a tions.” I d. ( quoting Tinn e y

, 770 A.2d a t 4 3 8 )

. “ The qu e stion of w h e th e r undue in f lu e n c e

e x ists is a fac t

- int e nsive inqui r y .” I d. (c iti n g Tinn e y

, 770 A.2d a t 438 )

.

I n his d ec ision, the t r i a l justi c e p r op er l y not e d th a t “ not a ll in f lu e n c e is undu e ” a nd th at

on l y undue in f lu e n c e wi l l s er ve to inv a lid a te a w i ll a nd must a mount to “ t he substitution of the

will of a thi r d p ar t y f o r the fre e will a nd c hoi c e o f the t e st a tor * * *.” C a ra n c i v. How ar d

, 708

A.2d 1321, 1324 ( R

. I

. 1 998 )

. The t r i a l jus t i c e e x plo re d the n a tu r e a nd d e pth of the d ece d e nt ’ s

re l a tionship with Mu r i e l a nd Mun r oe a s suppo r t f or h e r d ec ision to l ea ve t he bulk of h e r e st a te to

th e m ra th e r th a n the h e i r s

- a t

- l a w. He r e c o u nt e d Atto r n e y W a lsh ’ s t e stimo n y a bout the

d ece d e nt ’ s p er so n a li t y a nd wh a t the t r i a l justi c e c on c lud e d w a s the “ st r e n g th of h e r c h a r ac t er

. ”

The t r i a l justi c e r ef e re n c e d Atto r n e y W a lsh ’ s t e s t imo n y d e s cr ibi n g the re l a tionship b e tw ee n the

d ece d e nt a nd Mu r i e l “ a s st r i c t l y a n e mpl o y e r [

- ] e mpl o y e e re l a tionship, with [ Mu r i e l] ac ting

sol e l y a t [ the d ece d e n t ’ s] di rec tion.” The t r i a l justi c e a lso f ound th a t Atto r n e y W a lsh ’ s

c h ar a c t er i z a tion of the r e l a tionship b e tw ee n the t e st a t r ix a nd Mu r i e l w a s suppo r t e d b y M u r i e l ’ s

own t e stimo n y

, whi c h h e f ound to be cre dibl e

. The t r i a l justi c e a lso no t e d Mu r i e l ’ s d e m ea nor

du r ing h e r t e stimo n y , in c luding h e r e motion a l re a c tion to a photo of the d e c e d e nt a nd the

t e stimo n y f r om oth e r w i tn e ss e s 5 who r e c ount e d t he d e ce d e n t ’ s p r a ise f o r Mu r i e l. H e d ec l a r ed

“ th a t th er e e x ist e d a t r ue a nd sin c e r e car i n g re l a t i onship b e tw ee n t h e m, a n d th a t th e ir e motion al

a tt ac hm e nt to one a not h e r w e nt b e y ond the bou n ds of th e ir e mpl o y e r [

- ] e mpl o ye e re l a tionship.”

Add re ssi n g the d ece d e n t ’ s fr i e ndship with Mun r o e

, the t r i a l justi c e not e d t he lon g

, “ v e r y c los e”

re l a tionship the two h a d sin c e b ec omi n g n e i g hbo r s in the 1980s.

5 The t r i a l justi c e not e d th a t Atto r n e y W a lsh, M r s. I llu zz i, a nd Mun r o e w e r e the witn e ss e s who

c o rr obo r a t e d Mu r i e l ’ s t e s timo n y r e g a r di n g the d e p th of h e r re l a tionship with the d ece d e nt.- 11

- The t r i a l justi c e th e n re m ar k e d on the “ st ar k c ont ra s t ” b e tw e e n the t e st a t r i x ’ s

re l a tionships with Mu r i e l a nd Mun r oe a nd h e r a ntip a t h y tow ar d h e r ni e c e s a nd n e ph e ws. He

not e d th a t witn e ss t e st im o n y re v ea l e d th a t the d e ce d e nt h ar b o re d a n “ int e nse a nimosi t y tow a r ds

h e r e nti r e fa mi l y ” a nd c i t e d two sp ec i f ic inst a n ce s th a t e x p l a in e d w h y s h e d ec id e d to l ea ve th em

nothin g

. 6 L a st l y

, the t r i a l justi c e re j ec t e d the a r g um e nt th a t Atto r n e y I l l u zz i ’ s t e stimo n y th a t

Mu r i e l a nd Mun r oe h a d e n c ou r a g e d the d e ce d e n t to re m e mb e r c er t a in d i spositions e st a blish e d

undue in f lu e n c e

, st a ti n g th a t th er e w a s oth e r t e stimo n y th a t the d e c e d e nt a l rea d y h a d c ommitt ed

to m a king those dispositions, thus e st a blishing th a t th e y w e r e not substituting th e ir will f or th a t

of the d e c e d e nt ’ s.

A f t e r c a r ef ul re v i e w, w e ar e s a tis f i e d th a t the t r i a l justi c e m a de su ff i c i e nt f indin g s of f ac t

a nd th a t he did not ov e r look or mis c on ce ive m a t er i a l e vid e n c e n o r w a s he c l e a r l y w r o n g in

re

j ec ti n g the c l a im of undue in f lu e n ce.

T e s t a m e n t a r y Ca p a c i t y

The c ont e st a nt n e x t a ssi g ns err o r to the f inding t h a t the d e ce d e nt poss e s s e d the r e quisite

t e st a m e nt a r y c a p ac i t y w h e n she e x ec ut e d the will. Our a ss e ssm e nt of the rec o r d r e v ea ls th a t the

t r i a l justi c e c ondu c t e d a p r op e r a n a l y sis of the e v id e n c e a nd c ont r olli n g l a w a nd d ec l a r e d th a t h e

a g ree d with the f indi n g s of the P r ob a te C ou r t th a t the d ece d e nt w a s o f sou n d mind a nd poss e ss e d

t e st a m e nt a r y c a p ac i t y w h e n she e x ec ut e d the will.

6 The f i r st in c id e nt o cc u rre d wh e n c ont e st a nt w a s living with the d e c e d e nt. Ap p are nt l y

, t h e

d ece d e nt h a d a sk e d c on t e st a nt to l ea ve h e r f ood i n the mo r nin g s, but c on t e st a nt fa il e d to do so,

n ece ssit a ti n g a c a ll to a f r i e nd who stopp e d b y e v e r y mo r ni n g to fee d h er

. The s ec ond a nd mo r e

e g r e g ious in c id e nt o cc u r re d wh e n the d e c e d e nt ’ s ni ec e w a s living with h er

. The ni ec e l e f t the

d ece d e nt ’ s home on a F r id a y e v e ni n g a nd did n ot re tu r n f or the e nti r e w ee k e nd

— l ea vi n g h er

immobile a nd without a n y f ood o r m ea ns to move a bout h e r hom e

. The d ece d e nt f in a l l y

c ont ac t e d a noth e r fa mi l y m e mb e r to c o m e t e nd t o h e r on S und a y m o r nin g

, f inding a f a mish e d

d ece d e nt g rea t l y in n e e d of p er son a l c a r e

.- 12

- “ I

t is w e ll

- s e ttl e d th a t in a will c ont e st, the p r opo n e nt of the will b e a r s the b u r d e n of p r o o f

of t e st a m e nt a r y ca p ac i t y b y a f a ir p r e pond e r a n c e of the e vid e n c e .” P ol l ar d

, 862 A.2d a t 777.

Also w e ll

- e st a blish e d is the t e st f or t e st a m e nt a r y ca p ac i t y

, whi c h re qui r e s th a t, a t the time the

will is e x ec ut e d, the t e st a t r i x

,

“ h a s su ff i c i e nt mind a nd m e mo r y to und er st a nd the n a tu r e of the

busin e ss [ s ] he is e n g a g e d in wh e n m a king h [er ] wil l [ ; ] h a s a

rec oll ec tion of the p r o p er t y [ s ] he wish e s to di s pose of th ere b y [ ;]

knows a nd re c a lls the n a tu ra l obj ec ts of h [ er ] boun t y

, th e ir d e s er ts

with re f ere n c e to th e ir c ondu c t a nd t r ea tm e nt o f h [ er ]

, [ a nd] th e ir

n ece ssiti e s [ ;] a nd the m a nn e r in w hi c h [ s ] he wish e s to dist r ibute

h [ er ] p r op er t y a mong th e m.” R y nn v. R y nn

, 55 R

. I

. 310, 321, 181

A. 289, 294 ( 1935 )

.

I n the ca se b e f o r e us, c ont e st a nt a r g u e s t h a t t he t e stimo n y of Atto r n e y I llu zz i a nd

D r

. B u rr ill e st a blish e d th a t the d ece d e nt l ac k e d t e st a m e nt a r y c a p ac i t y a t the time she e x ec ut ed

h e r will. The c ont e st a nt points to Atto r n e y I llu zz i ’ s t e stimo n y th a t, s e v e ra l hou r s into h e r visit

with the d ece d e nt, she c on c lud e d th a t the d e ce d e nt l ac k e d t e st a m e nt a r y ca p a c i t y a s c on c lusive

e vid e n c e th a t l a t e r th a t e v e ning wh e n the d e c e d e n t e x ec ut e d the wi l l she a l so l ac k e d the ca p ac i t y

to do so. The c ont e st a n t a lso c ont e nds th a t D r

. B u rr ill ’ s t e stimo n y

, d er i v e d fr om the hospi c e

rec o r ds o f mo rphine dos e s s e t f o r th in the m e di ca l c h ar t, w a s p r oof th a t she l ac k e d c a p a c i t y

.

The t r i a l justi c e sp ec i f i ca l l y a d d re ss e d this e vid e n c e in his d ec ision, but he a ssi g n ed

g r ea t e r w e i g ht to the t e s t imo n y of Atto r n e y W a lsh, the t e st a t r i x ’ s lon g

- time a tto r n e y a nd whose

t e stimo n y w a s c o rr ob o r a t e d b y ot h e r c ont e mpo r a n e ous witn e ss e s. Atto r n e y W a lsh t e sti f i e d th a t

he b e li e v e d the d e ce d e nt h a d t e st a m e nt a r y c a p ac it y du r i n g the will e x ec ution on Nov e mb e r 11,

2004. The t r i a l justi c e a lso w a s p er su a d e d b y Mun r o e’ s t e stimo n y t h a t the d ece d e nt h a d not

rece i v e d mo r phine in the time p er iod b ef o r e she e x ec ut e d the will. He a lso not e d th a t “ [ e ] v e n if

[ the d ece d e nt] h a d t a k e n mo rphine a t some po i nt du r ing the p re vious d a y

, the t e stimo n y o f

Atto r n e y W a lsh a nd of the witn e ss e s to the will ’ s e x ec ution c onvi n ce [ d him] b y a fa i r- 13

- p re pond e r a n c e of t h e e v id e n c e th a t [ the d ece d e nt] h a d t e st a m e nt a r y c a p ac i t y a t the time she

si g n e d h e r will.” W e a c c o r d g rea t w e i g ht to the f a c tu a l f indin g s a nd c o n c lusions of a t r i a l justi c e

sitting without a ju r y

. JP L L iv e r y S er vi c e s, I n c

. v. R hode I sl a nd D e p ar t m e nt of Administ ra tion

,

88 A.3d 1134, 1141 ( R

. I

. 2014 )

.

I n this c a s e

, it is a pp a re n t th a t the t r i a l justi c e m a de su ff i c i e nt f indin g s of fac t, e v a lu a t ed

the t e stimo n y

, a nd w a s not c l ear l y w r o n g in his c on c lusion th a t the d e ce d e nt poss e s s e d the

re quisite t e st a m e nt a r y c a p ac i t y to e x ec ute a will on Nov e mb e r 11, 2004.

R u le 52 ( a)

L a st l y

, c ont e st a nt a r g u e s th a t the t r i a l justi c e fa i l e d to m a k e su f f i c i e nt f i n din g s of f ac t to

suppo r t his w r itt e n d ec i s ion. “ R ule 52 (a ) * * * re qui re s a t r i a l justi c e in a nonju r y ca s e to ‘f ind

the fac ts sp ec i a l l y a nd st a te s e p ara t e l y its c on c lusions of l a w th ere on * * *. ’ ” J P L L i v e r y

S er vi ce s, I n c

. , 88 A.3d a t 1141 ( quoting R ule 52 ( a ))

. How e v e r

, the t r i a l justi c e “ n ee d not e n g a ge

in e x t e nsive a n a l y sis to c omp l y with this re qui r e m e nt.” I d. ( quoti n g C o n nor v. S c hl e mm er

, 996

A.2d 98, 109 ( R

. I

. 201 0) )

. “ [ I ] f the d e c ision rea s on a b l y indi c a t e s th a t [ the t r i a l justi ce ] e x erc is ed

[ his or h er ] ind e p e nd e nt jud g m e nt in p a ssi n g on t h e w e i g ht o f the t e stimo n y a nd the c r e dibili t y o f

the witn e ss e s it will not be distu r b e d on a pp e a l u nl e ss it is c l ear l y w r o n g or oth er wise in c o r rect

a s a m a tt e r of l a w

. ” I d. ( quoting Not a r a ntonio v. Not ara ntonio

, 941 A

. 2d 138, 144

- 45 ( R

. I

.

2008 )).

The f indin g s of fac t in the d ec ision b ef o r e us on a pp ea l a d e qu a t e l y a dd re ss e d the

c ont r olling issu e s. The t r i a l justi c e a pp r op r i a t e l y re vi e w e d a nd w e i g h e d the e vid e n c e a nd m a d e

fac tu a l f indin g s a nd c on c lusions of l a w. W e th e r e f o r e di s cer n no m e r it in c ont e st a nt ’ s a r g um e nt

th a t the t r i a l justi c e fa il e d to m a ke the n ece ss a r y f indin g s of f a c t to suppo r t his w r itt e n d ec ision.

S e e J P L L iv e r y S er vi ce s, I n c

. , 88 A.3d a t 1141.- 14 Conclusion

For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. The record

shall be returned to the Superior Court.

### R HODE 

### I SLAND 

### S UPREME 

### C OURT 

### C LERK 

### ’ S 

### O FFICE



### Clerk’s Office Order/O pinion Cover Sheet

TITLE OF CASE: In re Estate of Ann Marie Picillo et al.

CASE NO : No. 20 1 1

- 262

- Appeal.

( KP 07

- 1217 )

COURT : Supreme Court

DATE OPINION FILED: February 15 , 2014

JUSTICES: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia

, JJ.

WRITTEN BY: Associate Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg

SOURCE OF APPEAL: Kent County Superior Court

JUDGE FROM LOWER COURT :

Associate Justice Daniel A. Procaccini

ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL :

For Contestant : Michael J. Picillo, Pro Se

For Proponent : Jessica L. Basso, Esq.