Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=c2a30be6-d091-492d-b9f2-4c18d614fb1f
Timestamp: 2017-05-29 23:19:36
Document Index: 547650088

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 10', '§ 19', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33']

RI Probate Appeal | Estate of Brian W. Hart a/k/a Brian William Hart v. Cheryl A. LeBlanc. | Steven Hart - JDSupra
Estate of Brian W. Hart a/k/a Brian William Hart v. Cheryl A. LeBlanc. RI Probate Appeal
On January 25, 2002, the Probate Court executed an order to transfer title to certain personal property from the estate to respondent. On February 22, 2002, the estate filed a notice of appeal with the Superior Court along with the reasons for appeal and a certified copy of the Probate Court record. Several photocopied pages of the Probate Court transcript, which had been recorded by a stenographer commissioned by petitioner, were attached to the certified record. On August 22, 2002, petitioner filed a copy of the entire transcript of the proceedings in the Probate Court. Relying on § 33-23-1, respondent filed a motion to dismiss on January 10, 2003, citing petitioner's failure to submit the transcript of the Probate Court proceedings to the Superior Court within thirty days of the execution of the order. At a hearing on January 31, 2003, petitioner admitted its failure to submit the transcript within the time prescribed, but requested that the court retroactively grant an extension to file the transcript. The hearing justice granted respondent's motion to dismiss, concluding that petitioner had failed to request a timely extension and, therefore, the Superior Court was without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The petitioner appealed to this Court, arguing that although it had not submitted the entire transcript, it nevertheless had perfected its appeal in the Superior Court. The issue before us is whether petitioner was required to submit the entire privately commissioned transcript of the Probate Court proceedings within thirty days of the execution of the order to perfect its appeal to the Superior Court. The Court held that to perfect an appeal to the Superior Court from a Probate Court judgment under § 33-23-1, the appealing party must submit a written transcript of all relevant portions of the Probate Court proceedings, regardless of who commissioned the recording or transcription originally.
Download PDF Hart of William Williams, J., This matter originated in the Probate Richmond. the Probate rejected Estate of Brian Hart's certain personal appealed to the Superior Court. LeBlanc's finding petitioner failed the within L. 23 appealed case before Supreme Court on April 6, 2004, parties appear show cause the issues this not summarily be decided. the of counsel and examining filed of not this the reasons judgment Probate executed the estate a notice of appeal with the Superior Court along the a certified the Court Court transcript, which commissioned attached the On August copy of the entire transcript of the proceedings on § 33-filed 10, 2003, citing the Probate proceedings Court within a hearing on January its failure the within the that the court extension the transcript. The hearing granted respondent's motion dismiss, and, therefore, the Superior Court to hear the appeal. appealed had it nevertheless appeal Discussion is Court proceedings within thirty Court considers questions the of appeals as questions. 2004) v. Jepson, statutory interpretation, including party's is well settled that when the language statute clear and must the statute literally give their meanings.'" Johnson Wales University, No. 6 (R.I. filed 15, file appeal twenty days of the execution of the Probate 33-23-1(a)(1). then has execution of to the the record and with Superior 1(a)(2)). the record consists of "by the claim of appeal and the any) of the relevant probate court Emphasis "if Court is record so be no transcripts available on appeal there recording of the proceedings. Pursuant a), was enacted the be recorded by either electronic or stenographic A to record the proceedings 853 A.2d 1217 Estate of Hart v. LeBlanc time prescribed, but requested that the court retroactively grant an extension to file the transcript. The hearing Estate of Brian W. Hart a/k/a Brian William Hart v. justice granted respondent's motion to dismiss, Cheryl A. LeBlanc. concluding that petitioner had failed to request a timely extension and, therefore, the Superior Court was without Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The petitioner appealed to this Court, arguing that although it had not submitted the No. 2003-464-Appeal. entire transcript, it nevertheless had perfected its appeal (WP 02-82) in the Superior Court. Present: Williams, C.J., Flanders, Goldberg, Flaherty, and II Discussion Suttell, JJ. The issue before us is whether petitioner was required OPINION to submit the entire privately commissioned transcript of PER CURIAM. This matter originated in the Probate the Probate Court proceedings within thirty days of the execution of the order to perfect its appeal to the Superior Court of the Town of Richmond. After the Probate Court judge rejected the Estate of Brian W. Hart's (estate or Court. This Court considers questions involving the timing of appeals brought under § 33-23-1 as statute of petitioner) petition to sell certain personal property, the limitations questions. See Griggs v. estate appealed to the Superior Court. The Superior Court granted Cheryl A. LeBlanc's (respondent) motion to Estate of Griggs, 845 A.2d 1006, 1009 (R.I. 2004) dismiss, finding that the petitioner failed to submit the (per curiam); Kelley v. Jepson, 811 A.2d 119, 121 (R.I. transcripts from the Probate Court proceedings within the 2002) (per curiam). We review de novo questions of law time prescribed by G.L. 1956 chapter 23 of title 33. The and statutory interpretation, including whether a party's petitioner timely appealed to this Court. claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Kelley, 811 A.2d at 121. "'It is well settled that when the language of This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument on April 6, 2004, pursuant to an order directing the statute is clear and unambiguous, this Court must interpret the statute literally and must give the words of the parties to appear and show cause why the issues the statute their plain and ordinary meanings.'" Keystone raised in this appeal should not summarily be decided. After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining Elevator Co. v. Johnson and Wales University, No. 2002-501A., slip op. at 6 (R.I. filed April 15, 2004). the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown and proceed to decide the To perfect an appeal from the Probate Court to the appeal at this time. For the reasons indicated herein, we Superior Court, an appellant must file the claim of appeal reverse the judgment of the Superior Court. within twenty days of the execution of the Probate Court I Facts and Travel order. Section 33-23-1(a)(1). "The appellant then has thirty days from the execution of the order to file a On January 25, 2002, the Probate Court executed an certified copy of the claim, the record and reasons for order to transfer title to certain personal property from the appeal with the Superior Court." Griggs, 845 A.2d at estate to respondent. On February 22, 2002, the estate 1009 (citing § 33-23-1(a)(2)). For the purpose of this filed a notice of appeal with the Superior Court along statute, the record consists of "copies of documents filed with the reasons for appeal and a certified copy of the with the probate court and certified by the probate clerk Probate Court record. Several photocopied pages of the which are relevant to the claim of appeal and the Probate Court transcript, which had been recorded by a transcript (if any) of the relevant probate court stenographer commissioned by petitioner, were attached proceedings." Section 33-23-1(b). (Emphasis added.) to the certified record. On August 22, 2002, petitioner The phrase "if any" found in § 33-23-1(b) reflects that filed a copy of the entire transcript of the proceedings in the Probate Court is not a court of record so there often the Probate Court. will be no transcripts available on appeal or there may be Relying on § 33-23-1, respondent filed a motion to only an electronic recording of the proceedings. Pursuant dismiss on January 10, 2003, citing petitioner's failure to to G.L. 1956 § 33-22-19.1(a), which was enacted in 1996 submit the transcript of the Probate Court proceedings to (P.L. 1996, ch. 110, § 10), at the request of either the the Superior Court within thirty days of the execution of Probate Court judge or one of the parties, the proceedings the order. At a hearing on January 31, 2003, petitioner shall be recorded by either electronic or stenographic admitted its failure to submit the transcript within the means. A party wishing to record the proceedings either Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=c2a30be6-d091-492d-b9f2-4c18d614fb1fby a stenographer 33-22-19.1(b). Section 33-forth a party appeals proceedings electronically but the town where located provide the appealing the records so on appealing create such 23-1 § 19.1, any recording, was made the Probate a written the relevant probate proceedings" must then the order to perfect an appeal. Section 23-1(b). Accordingly, if the Probate Court were recorded or by the of the transcript provided. Further, the proceedings were at the appealing party's expense must make the portion we noted a "Probate clear when commissioned transcripts a part of that Court exhibit the parties are record. Probate still confusion among the parties. made a part the submit in a potential of determining the Probate the fact that failure portions the that may prove the appeal should held against the court decides the issues Superior Court should rarely ever Court solely the appellant's one or more arguably relevant doing so. as timely effort to supply those portions of the Probate Court including the transcript, court to pass form all relevant recordings or transcripts during proceedings, regardless party originally requested that the proceedings a better understanding the intent, turn to what constitutes relevant of the transcript. The transmitted including the transcript, "is sufficient if it to pass on each Griggs, 845 at the record on appeal, covering the Probate petitioner's request issue on appeal denial portions appeal that to perfect an appeal to the Superior a Probate § 33-party must submit a written the Probate Court proceedings, of commissioned recording Thus, because petitioner relevant portion the Court within days of the execution hearing justice erroneously granted the motion reasons be OF CASE: W. Hart a/Hart SHEET 2003-Supreme OPINION FILED: June 18, COURT: Judge CJ., Flanders, Dissent-Per For Plaintiff Steven J. Hart, Esq. For Defendant Gregory P. electronically or by a stenographer may do so at his own the relevant portion of the transcript. The transmitted expense. Section 33-22-19.1(b). Section 33-22-19.1(c) record, including the transcript, "is sufficient if it will sets forth guidelines if a party appeals from proceedings allow the Superior Court to pass on each issue raised in that were recorded electronically but not transcribed. In the appeal." Griggs, 845 A.2d at 1010. When petitioner those situations, the town or city where the Probate Court submitted the copies of the certified record on appeal, is located must provide the appealing party, at the several pages from the transcript covering the Probate appealing party's expense, the electronic records so Court judge's decision to deny petitioner's request and the someone on the appealing party's behalf can create a reasoning behind that determination were attached to the "verbatim written transcript of such proceedings." Id. record. The only issue on appeal was whether the Probate After reading § 33-23-1 in light of § 33-22-19.1, it is Court judge's denial of the petition was proper. Clearly, clear that the Legislature intends that if any recording, the relevant portions of the transcript were submitted to electronic or written, was made during the Probate Court the Superior Court and petitioner's appeal was perfected. proceedings, a written transcript "of the relevant probate court proceedings" must then be submitted to the We hold that to perfect an appeal to the Superior Superior Court in order to perfect an appeal. Section Court from a Probate Court judgment under § 33-23-1, 33-23-1(b). Accordingly, if the Probate Court the appealing party must submit a written transcript of all proceedings were recorded or transcribed by the relevant portions of the Probate Court proceedings, appealing party the relevant portions of the transcript regardless of who commissioned the recording or must be provided. Further, if the proceedings were transcription originally. Thus, because the petitioner recorded or transcribed by any other party, then that party submitted the relevant portion of the transcripts to the -at the appealing party's expense -must make the Superior Court within thirty days of the execution of the relevant portion of the written transcript available for the order, the hearing justice erroneously granted the appealing party to submit to the Superior Court.1 respondent's motion to dismiss. We remand this case to the Superior Court to be evaluated on its merits. This decision is consistent with our recent decision in Griggs. In Griggs we noted that a "Probate Court judge Conclusion must be clear when privately commissioned transcripts are to be made a part of the record." Griggs, 845 A.2d at For the reasons stated here, we reverse the judgment 1011. We suggested that a Probate Court judge mark the of the Superior Court. The record shall be remanded to transcripts as an exhibit so all the parties are aware that the Superior Court. the transcript is part of the official record. Probate Court COVER SHEET judges are still encouraged to make any transcript a part of the record to avoid confusion among the parties. Even TITLE OF CASE: Estate of Brian W. Hart a/k/a Brian if the transcript is not officially made a part of the record, William Hart v. Cheryl A. LeBlanc however, to perfect an appeal to the Superior Court the appellant must submit in written DOCKET SHEET NO 2003-0464-Appeal 1 Nevertheless, given the de novo nature of a Probate COURT: Supreme Court appeal, the potential subjectivity of determining what portions of the Probate Court transcript are relevant DATE OPINION FILED: June 18, 2004 to the appeal, and the fact that any failure to include a portion or portions of the transcript that may prove Appeal from relevant to the appeal should be held against the SOURCE OF APPEAL: Superior County: Washington appealing party when the court decides the issues raised on the appeal, the Superior Court should rarely if ever JUDGE FROM OTHER COURT: Judge John E. Orton, dismiss a Probate Court appeal solely for the appellant's III mere failure to submit one or more arguably relevant JUSTICES: Williams, CJ., Flanders, Goldberg, Flaherty portions of the transcript within the period for doing so. and Suttell, JJ. As long as the appellant makes a timely and good faith Not Participating û Concurring-Dissenteffort to supply those portions of the Probate Court record, including the relevant portions of the transcript, WRITTEN BY: Per Curiam that are sufficient to enable the reviewing court to pass on the issues raised in the case, then the appeal should not be ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiff Steven J. Hart, Esq. dismissed. form all relevant recordings or transcripts created during the Probate Court proceedings, regardless ATTORNEYS: For Defendant Gregory P. Sorbello, Esq. of which party originally requested that the proceedings be recorded. RI Armed with a better understanding of the A.2d Legislature's intent, we briefly turn to what constitutes Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=c2a30be6-d091-492d-b9f2-4c18d614fb1f
Reference Info: Decision | State, 1st Circuit, Rhode Island | United States Send
Latest PostsRI Probate Appeal
© Steven Hart | Attorney Advertising Refine your interests »
more less Steven Hart on: