- 1 - Supreme Court No. 2018-59-Appeal. (WP 17-547) Estate of Sergio Prete :

v. : Probate Court of the Town of Narragansett, James L. Sheridan, Probate Jud g e. :

O R D E R This case came before the Supreme Court on March 6, 2019, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. Guiseppina Gagliano, as executrix for th e estate of her late hus band Sergio Prete, is appealing from a Superior Court ju dgment dismissing her probate co urt appeal. After considering the parties’ written submissions and reviewing th e record, we conclude th at cause has not been shown and proceed to decide the appeal at this time. 1 For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. In her role as executrix of her late husband’s estate, Gaglia no has been trying to obtain current information about the balance in each of the accounts her husb and held with several financial companies. Without formal legal re presentation, she enliste d the probate court’s assistance in her quest for information, reques ting that the probate court issue subpoenas duces

tecum to the companies. The probate court grante d her requests and issu ed a subpoena for each company, and each company responded. Gagliano, however, was convinced that the companies had not provided all of the information she requested. She believed that each of the companies

1 Gagliano did not appear before us for oral argument of her appeal.- 2 - she contacted had withheld information from he r and that these companies had conspired to withhold information and money from her husband’s estate. In August 2017, the Narraganset t Probate Court held a hear ing to address Gagliano’s requests to hold the companies in contempt and for reissuance of the subpoenas. The probate court judge denied Gagliano’s motions and instead inst ructed Gagliano to send each company a letter stating that they had two weeks to comply with the previously-issued subpoena or she would ask the probate court to hold them in contempt. The probate court also instructed Gagliano to return to the court on September 28 if sh e had not received a response to her letters putting the companies on notice that she would seek a co ntempt order if they continue d to withhold information. The probate judge advised Gagliano several times to retain an attorney to assist with the estate, but she did not hire counsel. Thereafter, Gagliano filed nineteen miscel laneous petitions for the probate judge to consider at the September 28 hearing, but she did not appear in court that day. She did not notify the probate court that she was not going to appear, nor did she provi de any reasons for her failure to appear at the hearing after the hearing date had passed. On October 2, 2017, the probate judge entered an order decreeing that “t he executrix is not capable of proceeding pro se as the issues involved in this estate have become too complicat ed and the executrix’s ac tions in this matter are impeding the efficient and effective administration of this estate.” The probate court judge ordered Gagliano to obtain legal representation by Octobe r 26, 2017, or he would remove her as executrix of her husband’s estate. Rather than retain counsel, Gagliano filed a timely claim of appeal from the October 2 order as well as a “Statement of Reasons of Appeal” in Washington County Superior Court, naming the Narragansett Probate Court, through the probate court judge, as defendant. Gagliano- 3 - effusively set out the reasons for her appeal, in cluding accusations that the probate court had not issued the subpoenas she requested in the form she submitted, the probate judge mistreated her during the August 24 hearing, and the probate judge violated her constitutional rights by ordering her to either hire an attorney or be removed as executrix of he r husband’s estate. Gagliano also claimed that the probate judge gave her permissi on not to appear at th e hearing scheduled for September 28 but then ultimately pun ished her with the October 2 order when she did not appear. At least half of Gagliano’s forty-three-page “Statement of Reasons of Appeal” documented the ways in which she believed the probate judge, the probate court staff, and the Narragansett assistant town solicitor had harassed her or attempted to prevent her from pursuing her appeal to the Superior Court. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the ap peal, asserting that Gagliano’s claims of error were not among the recognized purposes of judicial review of probate court decisions by the Superior Court and that the pr obate judge was not a proper part y-defendant. Gagliano filed a written objection to defendant’s motion, but, agai n, did not attend the hearing. The defendant’s motion to dismiss was heard in Superior Cour t on January 16, 2018. The hearing justice noted Gagliano’s absence and granted de fendant’s motion. Final judgment dismissing the appeal entered on January 30, 2018. Gagliano filed a timely notice of appeal to this Cour t. We review the dismissal of a probate court ap peal for abuse of discretion. See In re Estate of Paroda , 845 A.2d 1012, 1017 (R.I. 2004). Gagliano’s prebriefing statement provides a co mprehensive summary of the travel of her case through the probate court, Superior Court, a nd this Court, and incorporates by reference her “Statement of Reasons of Appeal ” that she filed in Superior C ourt. Other than making broad claims of mistreatment by cour t staff, judges, and opposing couns el, for which we find no basis,- 4 - Gagliano does not provide any lega l argument about how the Superior Court hearing justice abused her discretion by dismissing the prob ate court appeal. There is, ther efore, no cognizable legal issue for us to consider. An appeal pursuant to G. L. 1956 chapter 23 of title 33 “is not an appe al on error but is to be heard de novo in the [S]uperior [C]ourt.” Section 33-23-1(b). Therefore, “the effect of the probate judge’s judicial attitude towa rd appellant is of no consequence.” Malinou v. McCarthy , 98 R.I. 189, 192, 200 A.2d 578, 579 (1964). “[T]he [S]upe rior [C]ourt will de cide the case on the facts presented to it and on its vi ew of the law applicable thereto without regard to the probate judge’s decision or the alleged unjudicial motivations that may have prompted it.” Id. We also note that Gagliano has undertaken th e “very difficult task” of proceeding pro se , despite the probate court’s repeated advice that she retain counsel to assist in her responsibilities as executrix of the

estate. Jacksonbay Builders, Inc. v. Azarmi , 869 A.2d 580, 585 (R.I. 2005). Accordingly, she is entitled to some latitude by the courts, although not “g reater rights than those [who are] represented by counsel.” 2 Id. (quoting Gray v. Stillman White Co., Inc. , 522 A.2d 737, 741 (R.I. 1987)). A careful review of the reco rd and Gagliano’s written subm issions reveal that Gagliano has not raised any cognizable lega l issues for our determination, including any way in which the Superior Court justice ab used her discretion when she dismissed this probate appeal. Accordingly, the order of the Superior Court dismissing the appeal is affirmed, and the record of this case is remanded to the Superior Court.

2 Specifically, Gagliano is not en titled to the personal communicat ions or actions she has sought from court staff or the ex parte communications she has sought at each stage of her case from any of the judicial officers at the probate c ourt, Superior Court, or this Court.- 5 - Entered as an order of this Court on this 17 th day of April, 2019.

By Order, ______________/s/________________ ClerkSU

‐ CMS

‐ 02B (revised November 2016) STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

SUPREME COURT

– CLERK’S OFFICE ORDER COVER SHEET

Title of Case Estate of Sergio Prete v. Pr obate Court of the Town of Narra g ansett, James L. Sheridan, Probate Jud g e. Case Number No. 2018-59-Appeal. (WP 17-547) Date Order Filed April 17, 2019

Justices Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Inde g lia, JJ. Source of Appeal Washington County Superior Court

Judicial Officer From Lower Court Associate Justice Sarah Taft-Carter

Attorney(s) on Appeal For Plaintiff: Guiseppina Ga g liano, Pro Se For Defendant: Andrew H. Ber g , Esq.