Opinion ID: 1479348
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial court's failure to consider Barrington's opposition to successor's renewed motion to reconsider

Text: In its order granting Successor's renewed motion for reconsideration, the trial court indicated that Barrington's failure to note an opposition entitle[d] the court to treat both matters as conceded on the merits. It appears from the record, however, that Barrington's opposition was, in fact, docketed with the clerk of the Probate Division on August 14, 2000. Therefore, the court's statement in its July 30, 2001 order that Barrington had failed to note an opposition was error. We find that this error was harmless, however, because the trial court granted the motion for reconsideration on the merits and because, in any event, the arguments advanced in Barrington's opposing brief were unsupported. The trial court's order makes clear that it granted Successor's motion for reconsideration because its earlier ruling that Barrington was entitled to keep his legal fees was based on an incorrect factual premise. The trial court explained: In its previous order filed on January 8, 1997, this Court denied a request to require Barrington to return to this estate whatever compensation was paid to him by Gilbert and Preston Phillips. He had contended that his clients paid his fee out of monies that were their own inheritance, after they had completed estate administration. Initially, this Court had rationalized the fee payment based upon the fact that it was not paid from estate assets prior to the closure of the estate (needing prior court authority).... In support of his Renewed Motion, the Successor has attached relevant excerpts from the transcript of the deposition of Barrington. Barrington admitted a key fact, i.e., that his fees were paid simultaneously with the closure of the estate. Tr. at 106. This is critical, because it provides proof that his fees were paid entirely with funds disbursed from the estate, not commingled with any other private funds of his clients.... As a result of its finding that Barrington had actually been paid from the estate, the trial court concluded that Barrington was not entitled to keep his attorneys' fees because he had not received court approval prior to his payment. See In re Utley, 698 A.2d 446 (D.C.1997) (taking a fiduciary fee without requisite court approval constitutes misappropriation). Barrington's motion in opposition did not challenge the legal merits of Successor's claim that he was not entitled to attorneys' fees. Barrington did, however, advance three arguments that were not addressed in the trial court's order: (1) that Successor raised no new issues, no new facts, or any other matter that would justify relief from the operation of the order under Super. Ct. Prob. R. 130, (2) that Successor should have filed an appeal rather than moving for reconsideration, and (3) that it would be patently unfair to allow [Successor] to re-raise this issue at this late date. Barrington makes these same arguments in the instant appeal, and we will address each of them in turn. Because we do not find these arguments persuasive, we hold that the trial court's error in failing to address them was harmless. (2) Effect of Super. Ct. Prob. R. 130 Barrington claims that the trial court erred in granting Successor's renewed motion for reconsideration because that motion was not based on any of the seven exclusive grounds enumerated in Super. Ct. Prob. R. 130 warranting reconsideration. [3] Regardless of whether Successor's motion alleged any of Super. Ct. Prob. R. 130's seven exclusive grounds for reconsideration, Rule 130 applies only to probate matters not initiated by a complaint and summons. Super Ct. Prob. R. 130(a); See also In re Estate of Barfield, 736 A.2d 991, 995 (D.C.1999). Because Successor's motion for reconsideration followed a series of complaints filed by various parties seeking to remove the Phillips brothers as personal representatives of Elise P. Derricotte's Estate, see Derricotte I, 744 A.2d at 537-38, Successor's motion is not governed by Super. Ct. Prob. R. 130. See Barfield, 736 A.2d at 995. Instead, we consider Successor's motion a timely filed motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). See id.; see also Super. Ct. Prob. R. 1(f) (Except where inconsistent with the provisions of the Probate Division Rules ... the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable to proceedings in the Probate Division.); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e) (Any motion to alter or amend judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment). On appeal, we review a trial court's decision to grant a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Perry v. Sera, 623 A.2d 1210, 1217 (D.C. 1993). A trial court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion in order to correct manifest errors of law or fact. See Dist. No. 1  Pac. Coast Dist., Marine Eng'rs Beneficial Ass'n v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., 782 A.2d 269, 278-79 (D.C.2001) (citing 11 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER, AND MARY KAY KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2810.1, at 125-26 (1995 ed.)); see also, e.g., DiPasquale v. Milin, 303 F.Supp.2d 430 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (holding that [r]econsideration is properly granted `to correct clear error, prevent manifest injustice or review the court's decision in light of the availability of new evidence.' (citation omitted)). [4] We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's granting of the motion for reconsideration. Successor in his motion has made a prima facie case for reconsideration of the trial court's January 8 and January 23, 1997, orders declining to require Mr. Barrington to return his legal fees. In Successor's motion, he cites to law and fact indicating that the previous orders were in error and that Mr. Barrington's fees are subject to reclamation by the estate. Based on this prima facie showing, the trial court was well within its discretion to reconsider its judgment. (3) Successor was not required to file an appeal because the decision to seek reconsideration of a decision in the trial court or an appeal in this court is left to the movant/appellant. Rule 59(e) states that [a]ny motion to alter or amend judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e). The choice to file a motion for reconsideration, rather than an appeal, is not restricted by any statute or rule. See id. While Successor could have chosen to note an appeal from the trial court's initial decision, we are not aware of any cases or other authority that required Successor to take an appeal with this court [5] as opposed to filing a motion for reconsideration with the lower court pursuant to Rule 59(e). The discretion rests, in this case, with Successor, who chose to remain in the lower court to seek reconsideration of that court's judgment. (4) It is not unfair for the trial court to hear the renewed motion for reconsideration three years later. Laches is the principle that equity will not aid a plaintiff whose unexcused delay . . . would be prejudicial to the defendant. Federal Mktg. Co. v. Virginia Impression Prods. Co., 823 A.2d 513, 525 (D.C.2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also Powell v. Zuckert, 125 U.S.App. D.C. 55, 57, 366 F.2d 634, 636 (1966) (The defense of laches stems from the principle that `equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights,' and is designed to promote diligence and prevent enforcement of stale claims. (citation omitted)). To successfully establish the defense of laches, one must establish both that the delay was unreasonable and that one was prejudiced by the delay. See American Univ. Park Citizens Ass'n v. Burka, 400 A.2d 737, 740 (D.C.1979). The prejudice normally contemplated in applying laches... stems from such factors as loss of evidence and unavailability of witnesses, which diminish a defendant's chances of success. Powell, supra, 125 U.S.App. D.C. at 59, 366 F.2d at 638. A timely filed appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction. See, e.g., In re S.C.M., 653 A.2d 398, 402 (D.C.1995) (noting, however, that appeals of collateral issues, such as granting or denying preliminary injunctions, does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed on the merits). In the instant situation, the Phillips brothers timely filed an appeal from the trial court's judgment requiring them to return the money taken from the estate. That appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction in this matter. [6] Once this court rendered a decision in Derricotte I and the appeal ended, jurisdiction returned to the trial court with respect to the unfinished motion for reconsideration. [7] Successor, without delay, renewed his motion for reconsideration once jurisdiction was properly revested in the trial court. In his brief, Mr. Barrington notes that during the three year gap between the motions one of the Phillips brothers, as well as Ida Brown Bryant, the heir to the estate, died. Using these deaths as a foundation, Mr. Barrington argues that the equitable principle of laches prevents this motion from being considered. Mr. Barrington, however, has failed to establish the two necessary elements of laches: unexcused delay by Successor and prejudice to himself. Typically, prejudice is the primary factor to be analyzed by a court in assessing a laches defense. See Fed. Mktg. Co., supra, 823 A.2d at 525 (citing Beins v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 572 A.2d 122, 128 (D.C. 1990)). The instant appeal, however, is one of the unique strain of cases that can be resolved solely on the unexcused delay element. It is without question that Successor has an excuse for the three year gap between the motions. Were it not for the series of appeals taken by Mr. Barrington's own clients, among others, the lower court would have retained jurisdiction over the motion for reconsideration and would have rendered a decision over three years ago. The divestment of the trial court's jurisdiction was not Successor's fault, and is an excuse for the delay in renewing the motion. Furthermore, were we to have found the delay unexcused, Mr. Barrington's laches defense would still fail because he did not establish the equally necessary prejudice element. Although two parties to the original suit have since passed away, neither of those two parties is necessary to Mr. Barrington's ability to defend himself. Ms. Bryant's death is of no consequence to Mr. Barrington's defense; not being a party to the transaction in question, she has no relevance as a witness. The impact of the death of Gilbert Phillips, one of the two Phillips brothers, is diminished by the fact that the other brother is alive and capable of testifying, Mr. Barrington's own deposition testimony is available, [8] and evidence of the instrument used to pay Mr. Barrington's fees has been discovered. [9] The delay in the hearing on the motion for reconsideration results in no prejudice on Mr. Barrington's ability to defend his actions. Accordingly, for the forgoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. So ordered.