Court Opinion

ID: 9917093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 16:09:48.213298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:00:23.061899
License: Public Domain

Supreme Court

                                         No. 2022-316-Appeal.
                                         (PP 22-2078)

 Kelly Maltais              :

       v.                   :

Michael Maltais.            :

 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision
 before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers
 are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme
 Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence,
 Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone 222-3258 or Email
 opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov of any typographical or
 other formal errors in order that corrections may be made
 before the opinion is published.
                                                        Supreme Court

                                                        No. 2022-316-Appeal.
                                                        (PP 22-2078)

             Kelly Maltais                :

                   v.                     :

           Michael Maltais.               :

      Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.

                                   OPINION

      Justice Lynch Prata, for the Court. This case came before the Supreme

Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the

issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. The appellant, Kelly

Maltais (Kelly), has appealed from an order of the Superior Court dismissing her

probate appeal in favor of the appellee, Michael Maltais (Michael), on the basis that

her appeal was untimely.1        After considering the parties’ written and oral

submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown

and that this case may be decided without further briefing or argument. For the

reasons set forth herein, we vacate the order of the Superior Court.

1
 Throughout the opinion, the parties are referred to by their first names for clarity.
No disrespect is intended.
                                       -1-
                                  Facts and Travel

      The appellant, Kelly, is the daughter of the decedent, Laurent E. Maltais. The

Cranston Probate Court entered an order on March 10, 2022, admitting the last will

and testament of the decedent and appointing his son, Michael, as executor of his

estate. The will was executed on September 6, 2016.

      Kelly filed a claim of appeal from the probate court order on March 30, 2022.

The probate court certified the record to the Superior Court on April 11, 2022, and

Kelly filed her reasons of appeal with the Superior Court that same day. Kelly

alleged that her father’s will “was executed as a result of * * * fraud, duress, and/or

undue influence” and that he lacked the testamentary capacity to execute it.

      Shortly thereafter, Michael filed a motion to dismiss Kelly’s probate appeal

as untimely, because she filed her reasons of appeal thirty-two days after the court’s

order. Michael argued that the appeal should be dismissed based on G.L. 1956 § 33-

23-1(a)(2), which requires a party aggrieved by an order of the probate court to file

their reasons of appeal within thirty days.

      Kelly objected, arguing that the thirtieth day from the probate order was

Saturday, April 9, 2022, and that under Rule 6 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil

Procedure,2 she had until Monday, April 11, 2022, to file her appeal. Michael

2
  In relevant part, Rule 6(a) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure provides
that when calculating a period of time under the rules, “[t]he last day of the period
is to be included, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday, in which event
                                          -2-
responded that Rule 81 exempts probate appeals from the Superior Court Rules of

Civil Procedure and asked the court to dismiss Kelly’s appeal with prejudice because

it was not filed within thirty days. Even if Rule 6 did not apply, Kelly insisted, there

was excusable neglect because the probate court did not certify the record until April

11, 2022.

        After a hearing, the motion to dismiss was granted. The hearing justice

reasoned that Rule 6 does not apply to the calculation of time when filing a probate

appeal due to Rule 81’s provision that the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure

do not apply “during the process and pleading stages” of probate appeals. The

hearing justice explained that he was “not sure what else there is in a case other than

the process and pleading stages, and certainly the process could be looked at as the

filing of the [probate] appeal itself.” The hearing justice relied on this Court’s

holding in Griggs v. Estate of Griggs, 845 A.2d 1006 (R.I. 2004), wherein weekend

days were included when counting the thirty-day time frame for appeal, and

ultimately concluded that Kelly’s appeal was not timely because it was filed thirty-

two days after the order. 3 Griggs, 845 A.2d at 1009-10. On July 14, 2022, an order

the period runs until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday, nor
a holiday.” Super. R. Civ. P. 6(a).
3
  The petitioners in Griggs v. Estate of Griggs, 845 A.2d 1006 (R.I. 2004), sought
an extension of the initial deadline to perfect their appeal from the probate court to
allow additions to be made to the record. Griggs, 845 A.2d at 1009-10. We held that
the Superior Court lacked authority to grant the extension as the deadlines for
appealing an order of the probate court to the Superior Court are jurisdictional and
                                          -3-
was entered dismissing Kelly’s probate appeal. Thereafter, Kelly filed a timely

notice of appeal.

                                Standard of Review

      “The sole function of a motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of the

complaint.” Jenkins v. City of East Providence, 293 A.3d 1267, 1270 (R.I. 2023)

(brackets omitted) (quoting Narragansett Electric Company v. Minardi, 21 A.3d

274, 277 (R.I. 2011)). This Court has previously held that the same standard that

applies to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss will apply to a motion to dismiss a

probate appeal. Mendes v. Factor, 41 A.3d 994, 1000 (R.I. 2012). “In passing on a

Rule 12(b) dismissal, this Court applies the same standard as the trial justice.”

Jenkins, 293 A.3d at 1270 (quoting Narragansett Electric Company, 21 A.3d at

278). “We thus are confined to the four corners of the complaint and must assume

all allegations are true, resolving any doubts in plaintiff’s favor.” Id. (quoting

Narragansett Electric Company, 21 A.3d at 278). “A motion to dismiss may be

granted only ‘if it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that a plaintiff would not be

entitled to relief under any conceivable set of facts.’” Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting

Narragansett Electric Company, 21 A.3d at 278).

may not be extended, except for purposes of extending the time to file a transcript.
Id. The issue before us concerns whether the computation of time for the thirty-day
deadline is tolled when the last day for filing falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal
holiday.
                                        -4-
      Nevertheless, “[t]his Court considers questions involving the timing of

appeals brought under § 33-23-1 as statute of limitations questions.” Estate of

Garan, 249 A.3d 1254, 1258 (R.I. 2021) (quoting Estate of Hart v. LeBlanc, 853

A.2d 1217, 1218 (R.I. 2004)). “Thus, our review is also de novo for such questions

of ‘statutory interpretation, including the question of whether a statute of limitations

has run against a plaintiff’s claim.’” Id. (quoting Kelley v. Jepson, 811 A.2d 119,

121 (R.I. 2002)). “When a statute is ‘clear and unambiguous, this Court must

interpret the statute literally and must give the words of the statute their plain and

ordinary meanings.’” In re Estate of Chelo, 209 A.3d 1181, 1184 (R.I.

2019) (quoting Accent Store Design, Inc. v. Marathon House, Inc., 674 A.2d 1223,

1226 (R.I. 1996)).

                                      Discussion

      On appeal, Kelly argues that, although Rule 81 exempts probate appeals from

the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure during the process and pleading stages,

the filing of a probate appeal may not fall into that category. In support of her

argument, Kelly relies on this Court’s holding in McAninch v. State of Rhode Island

Department of Labor and Training, 64 A.3d 84 (R.I. 2013). In McAninch, we held

that “Rule 6(a) applies to the Superior Court’s review of administrative decisions.”

McAninch, 64 A.3d at 89. Kelly argues that under Rule 6 she had until Monday,

April 11, 2022, to file because the thirtieth day was Saturday, April 9, 2022.

                                         -5-
      For his part, Michael argues that this Court should affirm the hearing justice’s

dismissal of Kelly’s probate appeal because her failure to proceed in a timely fashion

cannot be overlooked by a sympathetic judge.            Michael insists that Rule 81

specifically exempts probate appeals from the application of Rule 6.

      When appealing a probate court order or decree to the Superior Court pursuant

to § 33-23-1, the claim of appeal must be filed with the probate court within twenty

days of the execution of the order or decree. Section 33-23-1(a)(1). The appellant

then has thirty days after the entry of the order or decree to file a certified copy of

the claim and the reasons of appeal with the Superior Court. Section 33-23-1(a)(2).

“This Court has long interpreted the procedural requirements for filing a probate

appeal as mandating strict compliance.” Estate of Garan, 249 A.3d at 1258; see also

Dugdale v. Chase, 52 R.I. 63, 64, 157 A. 430, 430-31 (1931) (holding that, “the

statutory procedure authorizing an appeal from the probate court to the [S]uperior

[C]ourt must be strictly complied with”). The deadlines in § 33-23-1(a)(1) and (2)

are jurisdictional and may not be extended “by a sympathetic trial justice,” nor may

the court overlook an appellant’s noncompliance. Ims v. Audette, 40 A.3d 236, 238

(R.I. 2012) (quoting Griggs, 845 A.2d at 1009). This Court has stated that “the

purpose of requiring a party to file the reasons of appeal is, first, to provide notice to

the opposing party of what is at issue, and second, to restrict the appellant during his

                                          -6-
or her appeal to only the issues listed within the reasons for appeal.” Estate of Garan,

249 A.3d at 1259 (brackets omitted) (quoting Mendes, 41 A.3d at 1002).

      This appeal centers on whether the computation of time for the thirty-day

deadline is tolled when the last day for filing falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal

holiday. Rule 6 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he

last day of the period is to be included, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal

holiday, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is neither

a Saturday, Sunday, nor a holiday.” Super. R. Civ. P. 6(a). Nevertheless, Rule 81

specifically exempts probate appeals from the application of the Superior Court

Rules of Civil Procedure. Super. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(1)(A) (“These rules do not apply

during the process and pleading stages to * * * [p]robate appeals[.]”).

      This Court has long recognized some measure of flexibility in the context of

probate appeals.

             “The rule is this: Whenever by a rule of court or an act of
             the legislature a given number of days are allowed to do
             an act, or it is said an act may be done within a given
             number of days, the day in which the rule is taken or the
             decision made is excluded, and if one or more Sundays
             occur within the time they are counted unless the last day
             falls on Sunday, in which case the act may be done on the
             next day.” Barnes v. Eddy, 12 R.I. 25, 26 (1878) (internal
             quotation marks omitted).

Likewise, the rule is applicable to legal holidays. Cook v. Greenlaw, 58 R.I. 402,

404, 193 A. 494, 495 (1937).

                                         -7-
      Therefore, it is appropriate to toll the time period when the last day falls on a

weekend or legal holiday in order to give appellants “the full benefit of all the time

allowed, even though it may be necessary to that end to give an additional day.”

Barnes, 12 R.I. at 26. The thirtieth day for filing Kelly’s probate appeal fell on

Saturday, April 9, 2022. As such, the hearing justice’s decision afforded Kelly only

twenty-nine days to file her appeal because the Superior Court clerk’s office is closed

on weekends. Under the clear and unambiguous language of § 33-23-1(a)(2), Kelly

was entitled to thirty days to file her appeal to the Superior Court. 4

                                      Conclusion

      For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we vacate the order of the Superior

Court. The papers in the case are remanded to the Superior Court with our decision

endorsed thereon for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

4
  Other jurisdictions agree. See Wade v. Dworkin, 407 P.2d 587, 589 (Alaska 1965)
(“At common law it was established if the last day on which an act was to be
performed fell on a Sunday, then that Sunday was excluded and the time was
extended to the following day.”); see also Pettigrove v. Parro Construction Corp.,
194 N.E.2d 521, 523-24 (Ill. App. Ct. 1963) (excluding Saturdays from the final day
of a time period because most clerks’ offices are closed on the weekends).
                                        -8-
                                         STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
                                     SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
                                           Licht Judicial Complex
                                             250 Benefit Street
                                           Providence, RI 02903

                                 OPINION COVER SHEET

Title of Case                        Kelly Maltais v. Michael Maltais.

                                     No. 2022-316-Appeal.
Case Number
                                     (PP 22-2078)

Date Opinion Filed                   January 11, 2024

                                     Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and
Justices
                                     Long, JJ.

Written By                           Associate Justice Erin Lynch Prata

Source of Appeal                     Providence County Superior Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court    Associate Justice Kevin F. McHugh

                                     For Appellant:

                                     Edward R. McCormick, III, Esq.
Attorney(s) on Appeal
                                     For Appellee:

                                     Stephen P. Levesque, Esq.

SU-CMS-02A (revised November 2022)