Bettez v. Bettez, C.A. No.: PP 12-4239
| Decision Date | 17 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No.: PP 12-4239 |
| Parties | WILLIAM A. BETTEZ v. ROBERT A. BETTEZ, RONALD BETTEZ, and DANIEL STONE |
| Court | Rhode Island Superior Court |
DECISION
As this Court undertakes a review of the claims made by a son who now challenges the testamentary dispositions made in his father's last will, it remains mindful of the keen observation made by Niccolo Machiavelli: "A son sooner forgets the death of his father than the loss of his patrimony." Niccolo Machiavelli, Il Principe 99 (Giuseppe Lisio ed., 1933) (1515).1
Before this Court is Robert A. Bettez, Ronald Bettez, and Daniel Stone's (Defendants) Motion for Summary Judgment—pursuant to Super. R. Civ. P. 56—on the underlying appeal from Scituate Probate Court filed by William A. Bettez (Plaintiff) (Complaint). The Plaintiff appeals from the admission of the Last Will and Testament of Rudolph T. Bettez (Rudy) and the appointment of co-executors of that testamentary instrument. See Probate Court Order, ¶¶ 1-2. Following is a brief outline of the undisputed facts established in the record before this Court.
On December 4, 2010, Rudy passed away, survived by his three sons—Robert, Ronald, and William—and his second wife, Joyce Bettez.2 His three sons, and one daughter, Deborah, who predeceased her father, were all born of Rudy's first wife, Barbara, who passed away in 2003.
During the time Rudy and Barbara were married, they entered into a joint revocable trust agreement, dated February 13, 2003 (Bettez Trust). Rudy employed the services of Daniel Stone, Esq., a co-defendant in this matter, to draft this trust agreement. See Dep. of Daniel Stone (Stone Dep.), 14:9-14. However, upon Barbara's death, that instrument became irrevocable, and Rudy was entitled only to a life interest of the Bettez Trust assets. Contemporaneously with the creation of the Bettez Trust, and with the aid of Mr. Stone, Rudy drafted his will to act as a pour over will for the Bettez Trust.
Several years after Barbara's passing, in late February or early March of 2009, Rudy met Joyce Van Ness, and their relationship flourished. Rudy would eventually propose, and the two were to be wed. However, prior to the marriage, Rudy and Joyce entered into a premarital arrangement whereby Joyce disclaimed any right to the Bettez Trust assets upon Rudy's death. See Premarital Agreement (Agreement). Additionally, that Agreement precluded "either party to receive any alimony, whether pendente lite or permanent." Id. The couple again sought the representation and counsel of Daniel Stone, who prepared the document and acted as a witness to the parties' signatures. Id.; Aff. of Daniel Stone (Stone Aff.), ¶ 9.
At this time, Rudy also sought Mr. Stone's counsel as he prepared to update his will to reflect his impending marriage and to make certain changes that reflected hischanging sentiment towards particular family members since the creation of the Bettez Trust. Id., ¶¶ 3-6. In fact, Rudy had been planning to change his estate plan to forgive the various loans provided to Bill and the unpaid rents owed by Bill to the Bettez Trust for several years, and had intermittent discussions with Mr. Stone in this regard. Id.
Accordingly, Mr. Stone prepared an updated will (2009 Will), and on September 30, 2009, Rudy signed the document "revoking all previous wills and codicils." See 2009 Will. In that Will, which was made in anticipation of his marriage to Joyce, Rudy exercised his testamentary powers of appointment granted to him "under the second paragraph and under numbered paragraph 4 of Article THIRD, and under numbered paragraph 4 of Article FIFTH of the [Bettez Trust]." Id. Therein, Rudy directed his executor to release Bill from debts owed to him and owed to the Bettez Trust. Id. However, in recognition of the aforementioned release, the 2009 Will also provided:
My omission to make any other provision herein for my said son [Bill], is due to my belief that funds heretofore advanced to him, as loans, as rents not paid by him for properties occupied by him personally and by his business interests, and otherwise, constitute adequate provision for him in respect of my estate, the estate of my late spouse, Barbara Bettez and the Bettez Trust.
Id., ¶ 5(A). This Will also split the remainder of the Bettez Trust assets among Bob, Ron, and Rudy's late daughter's two children, Sara Vernon and Jesse King. Id., ¶ 5(B). Finally, any residue of Rudy's estate was bequeathed to Joyce, as she had disclaimed any and all claim to the Bettez Trust assets through the premarital agreement. Id.
In deciding the present Motion, this Court is required to analyze the changing relationship between Rudy and Bill from the creation of the Bettez Trust, naming Bill as a co-trustee, to the drafting of the 2009 Will, from which Bill alleges he was "disinherited." During the time Bill's mother was alive, there is no dispute that Bill was closer with his mother than he was with his father. Dep. of Pl. (Bill Dep.), 43:18-21. Thus, it does not surprise the Court that upon an incident whereby Rudy struck Barbara, Bill had a falling out with his father. Id. Bill does not dispute this change between the two stating that, "if it wasn't for my mama, I would have beat the shit out of [Rudy]." Id. However, the downward spiraling relationship between Rudy and Bill did not revolve as much around Barbara's mistreatment as it did around Bill's finances and Rudy's growing agitation with Bill's financial irresponsibility.
The first, and undeniably the most striking, financial transaction between the two involved a loan in the amount of $130,200 made by Rudy to a company controlled by Bill, Global Industries & Technologies, Inc. (Global) (the "Loan"). See Promissory Note. That Loan was prepared by Daniel Stone and was entered into between the two parties on December 23, 2003, contemporaneous with the creation of the Bettez Trust. Id. In order to procure the funds necessary to make this Loan, Rudy was required to obtain a bank loan with a thirty (30) year term at an interest rate of 6.875 %, the same terms extended to Bill in the Loan. Id. Repayment, which was to be made in equal consecutive monthly installments, was personally guaranteed by Bill. Id.
However, neither Global nor Bill made the agreed to monthly payments. Stone Aff., ¶ 11. Consequently, and resulting from Bill's default, Rudy was forced to sell a general store he owned in order to retire the debt owed to the bank. Id.
A second financial relationship was created between the parties when Rudy leased both a residential property at 992 Knotty Oak Road in Coventry, Rhode Island and a commercial property at 1000 Knotty Oak Road in Hope, Rhode Island to his son. Id., ¶ 12. These leases came to fruition after Bill approached his father in search of a place for him and his family to live. In response to his son's plight, Rudy immediately employed Mr. Stone to prepare lease documents for the two properties to be leased by Bill in April of 2006. Id. Nonetheless, Bill failed to timely pay the rent for either property resulting in Rudy's request of Mr. Stone to transmit notice that untimely payment would no longer be tolerated by Bill. Id., ¶ 13. Although several veiled threats of eviction were sent by Rudy via Mr. Stone, notices of termination of tenancy for both properties were not sent until October 28, 2009. Id., ¶ 16. However, Rudy did not press the eviction and instead agreed to lease the properties at reduced rents of $150 per week for the residential property and $250 per week for the commercial property. Id., ¶ 17.
Beyond these financial transactions involving loans and leases, Rudy also became agitated with Bill for smaller financial indiscretions. To demonstrate, during his mother's life, Bill would regularly take items from the family's general store without paying for the items, effectively running up a generous tab. Bill Dep., 25:11-24. Although no firm amount has been provided by either party, it is Bill's contention that his mother "forgave" that debt "when she found out that they were selling the store." Id., 12:10-14.Interestingly, the Plaintiff has not set forth any evidence establishing a mutuality of agreement between Barbara and Rudy to forgive his general store debt.
Finally, the record establishes that Rudy made certain disbursements to Bill that were not made to his other two sons or to either of his late daughter's children. For example, in early 2009, Rudy furnished Bill approximately $18,000 to refurbish a truck. Id. at 23:5-16. Additionally, when making payments of $10,000 to each of his sons, Rudy provided Bill with an extra $10,000 more than either of his other children. Dep. of Robert Bettez (Bob Dep.), 50:2-25, 51:1-5.
Consequently, the failure of Bill to repay certain debts and obligations and Rudy's other acts of generosity towards Bill led to growing friction and animosity between father and son. Actually, Bill and Rudy's tumultuous relationship is well documented by Bill's own recollections and those of the other family members. For example, Joyce recollected that Rudy was "obsessed" with Bill's financial failures, going so far as to call Bill "twinkle toes" and stating that, in reference to Rudy's estate. Dep. of Joyce Bettez (Joyce Dep.), 57:21-25.
The Plaintiff's primary contention is that Attorney Daniel Stone exerted undue influence upon Rudy when he drafted and executed the 2009 Will. Prior to his representation of Rudy in the estate planning detailed above, Mr. Stone first became affiliated with the Bettez family through Bill. See Stone Dep., 11:14-18. Beginning in 1986, Mr. Stone represented both Bill and the entities that Bill managed or controlled.Id. Their relationship consisted of corporate work, including Mr. Stone's...
To continue reading
Request your trial