Opinion ID: 6331523
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: “It is well established that a probate appeal to the Superior Court ‘is de novo in nature.’” Larkin v. Arthurs, 210 A.3d 1184, 1190 (R.I. 2019) (deletion omitted) (quoting Lett v. Giuliano, 35 A.3d 870, 876 (R.I. 2012)). On our appellate review, 5 In the Superior Court, defendant had asserted that plaintiff’s probate appeal was barred by res judicata; because the parties have not argued this issue on appeal, however, we need not address it here. -9- however, “the factual findings of a trial justice sitting without a jury are accorded great weight and will not be disturbed unless the record shows that the findings clearly are wrong or the trial justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence.” Id. (quoting In re Estate of Ross, 131 A.3d 158, 166 (R.I. 2016)). “If, in our review of the record, ‘it becomes clear to us that the record indicates that competent evidence supports the trial justice’s findings, we shall not substitute our view of the evidence for that of the trial justice even though a contrary conclusion could have been reached.’” Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting In re Estate of Ross, 131 A.3d at 166). Questions of law and statutory construction, however, we review on a de novo basis. See, e.g., In re Estate of Ross, 131 A.3d at 166. Furthermore, choice-of-law determinations are questions of law, which this Court reviews on a de novo basis. See Webster Bank, National Association v. Rosenbaum, 268 A.3d 556, 559 (R.I. 2022) (indicating that “our case law is replete with instances in which we in effect reviewed [choice-of-law issues] on a de novo basis”) (quoting Harodite Industries, Inc. v. Warren Electric Corporation, 24 A.3d 514, 529 (R.I. 2011)); King v. Huntress, Inc., 94 A.3d 467, 482 (R.I. 2014) (applying a de novo standard of review to a choice-of-law issue). - 10 - III