Opinion ID: 2097385
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Motion for Reconsideration and Motions for New Trial

Text: The Connors filed a motion for reconsideration in the declaratory-judgment action on November 14, 2007. A hearing on the motion was held before the trial justice on November 19, 2007. At the conclusion of argument, the trial justice denied the motion from the bench. He noted that plaintiffs raised for the first time    an allegation of fraud and deceit perpetrated by Virginia    and Mary    and Mr. Mastrati acting in concert which this Court completely discounts and gives absolutely no credence to. He stated that he did not think [a] constructive trust had been established just because there is a relation of confidence and trust   . He specifically found no undue influence in [the] case. The trial justice also discussed Mr. Mastrati's testimony at some length. He noted that, although Mr. Mastrati did seem somewhat unclear about the precise legal definition of the natural objects of one's bounty, the trial justice could find nothing wrong with the manner in which he conducted the will proceedings. Indeed, he opined that a workaday lawyer would not normally ask elderly clients who the natural objects of their bounty are, and if they appear to be competent on their face, [such lawyers] don't ask about the family history. While he conceded that Mr. Mastrati [c]ould [possibly] have done a better job in interrogating [Kathleen], he had ample opportunity, over the course of several meetings, to evaluate Kathleen's competence. He also specifically discussed the Connors' arguments with respect to certain congruencies between Kathleen's allegedly-undisclosed 1985 will and the 2002 will. Ultimately, he concluded that the similarities prove the absence of fraud   . The trial justice also explained that, in rendering his decision in the declaratory-judgment action, he didn't rely on the video [from] 2005 or 2006 [recorded] just months before [Kathleen's] death. Rather, he mentioned the videos parenthetically and indicated that [they] did not weigh on [his] decision   . In conclusion, the trial justice found that plaintiffs had failed to carry their burden of proof, while defendants demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Kathleen was of sound mind at the time she executed the deed, was not the subject of undue influence, and was not defrauded or deceived. On December 7, 2007, the estate moved for a new trial in the Probate Court appeal. The Connors moved for a new trial in the declaratory-judgment action on December 10, 2007. The trial justice heard argument on both motions on December 18, 2007. He granted defendants' motion in the Probate Court appeal and denied plaintiffs' motion in the declaratory-judgment action that same day. Thereafter, the Connors timely appealed to this Court.