Bielecki v. Boissel
| Decision Date | 14 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-715-A,95-715-A |
| Citation | 715 A.2d 571 |
| Parties | Christine BIELECKI et al. v. Lynne-Marie BOISSEL. ppeal. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Mark L. Smith, Smithfield, Lynn Bouvier Kapiskas, for plaintiffs.
Lauren E. Jones, Providence, Kevin Douglas Neitke, for defendant.
Before WEISBERGER, C.J., and LEDERBERG, BOURCIER, FLANDERS and GOLDBERG, JJ.
This case comes to us on appeal from a final judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs Christine and Dennis Bielecki as coexecutors of the estate of Ernest Boissel. The defendant in that action, Lynne-Marie Boissel, appeals, alleging that the trial justice erred in denying her motion to dismiss made at the conclusion of the presentation of the plaintiffs' evidence and case in chief and in subsequently finding in favor of the plaintiffs and entering final judgment for the estate. We affirm the final judgment but remand the case for recalculation of damages in accordance with this opinion.
The plaintiffs in this litigation are Christine Bielecki (Christine) and her husband Dennis Bielecki (Dennis), coexecutors of the estate of Ernest Boissel (Ernest). The defendant and appellant here is Lynne-Marie Boissel (Lynne). 1 Christine and Lynne are sisters, the daughters of Ernest. The litigation concerns a dispute with regard to the ownership of funds withdrawn from several joint bank accounts that stood in the names of Ernest and Lynne for some eleven years but from which Lynne withdrew funds shortly before Ernest's death on March 22, 1993.
The coexecutors of Ernest's estate filed a civil action in the Superior Court, seeking the return to the estate of all funds withdrawn by Lynne. In their civil-action complaint the coexecutors set out three separate counts and theories for recovery, (1) "unlawful detention," (2) "constructive trust," and (3) "conversion." Each count alleges that Lynne "falsely, fraudulently and with intent to deceive" induced Ernest to create the several joint accounts by representing to him that such were in his best interest and that she knew "that the aforesaid representations were false in that [she] intended to use the money for her own benefit and never for the benefit of [Ernest]." That fraud-in-the-inducement allegation overlaps each of the three counts in the plaintiffs' complaint.
In her appeal Lynne asserts that the trial justice erred in ruling upon her motion to dismiss made at the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case in chief. 2
Additionally, she contends that on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint and in the absence of any finding of fraudulent conduct on her part made by the trial justice, the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief granted in the final judgment entered by the trial justice. We address only the second contention because we conclude that even though the trial justice did employ a rule of law that was totally inapplicable to his consideration of the defendant's motion to dismiss, we nonetheless deem his error to be harmless in light of the after-developed case facts.
The trial record reveals that Lynne, unmarried and one of five adult children of Ernest and his wife, Eileen, lived with her parents in the family home in Woonsocket. Lynne in fact was a joint owner of that home with her parents. Ernest owned and operated a successful tavern business called Buddy's Cafe in Woonsocket.
Lynne's mother, Eileen, died in 1981. After Eileen's death, title to the Woonsocket house was transferred to Lynne and her father as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Ernest, then not in the best of health but still keen of mind and astute in business matters, decided to create and open several joint bank accounts with his daughter Lynne's name added to the accounts as a joint owner. When those accounts were opened, however, Ernest explained to Lynne his purpose for doing so and told Lynne that that purpose was that she could take care of him during his lifetime, pay his bills, and assist in banking funds realized from his ongoing tavern business. Ernest specifically designated one of the accounts to be used for his funeral expenses, and as far as the remaining accounts were concerned, Lynne, upon his death, was to distribute whatever funds remained in the accounts to his family members and to include in that distribution his grandson, Jason. Lynne, in her testimony at trial, acknowledged those directions by her father, Ernest. She testified:
On November 19, 1992, Ernest was admitted to Landmark Medical Center in Woonsocket, where he stayed until December 4, 1992, when he was transferred to the Holiday Nursing Home. During Ernest's stay at the nursing home, Lynne, in consultation with her brother Dennis, undertook to make some renovations of the Woonsocket home. Lynne believed that such renovations were necessary because a doctor at the Landmark Medical Center had stated that when Ernest was to be discharged, the nursing home would be a good environment for Ernest because it would be clean, thereby indicating that someone had informed the doctor that the Woonsocket house was not clean. In fact several of the family members agreed that the Woonsocket house was badly in need of repairs. A report from the Visiting Nurses of Woonsocket described the house as "extremely unkempt and filthy." A trial witness and friend of Lynne's who helped care for Ernest described the house as Even Christine, the plaintiff in this action, testified that the house was "very unkempt." Dennis and Lynne also felt that the renovations to the house were necessary if Ernest was to return from the nursing home and live there, which they both expected him to do. Ernest himself was aware of the renovations, and although he was not in complete favor of spending his money from the joint accounts for them, he never specifically instructed Lynne or Dennis to stop the work, despite his being coherent enough to understand the situation and having numerous opportunities to voice his opinion. In fact Dennis opined that the renovations actually " Unfortunately, Ernest never lived long enough to see the renovations to his house because on December 16, 1992, he was taken to the Bielecki house while the Woonsocket house was still undergoing renovations, and then, on December 19, Ernest returned to Pawtucket Memorial Hospital. Three days later he went into a coma from which he never recovered. On March 22, 1993, Ernest died.
On December 28, 1992, prior to Ernest's death but while he was in a coma, Lynne, having previously learned of the provisions providing for distribution of the joint accounts contained in Ernest's last will and testament, closed the accounts that she held jointly with Ernest and transferred the money into accounts bearing her name only. Thus, when Ernest's will took effect, including the provision that declared that the money in the joint accounts was to be distributed to his family and Jason, no money remained in those joint accounts.
On July 13, 1993, Christine and Dennis Bielecki, as coexecutors of Ernest's will, filed their civil action, the subject of this appeal, in the Superior Court against Lynne.
Although at first blush it would appear that the trial justice was required to have first found fraudulent conduct on the part of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Credit Union Cent. Falls v. Groff
...Riendeau does not dispute, we are satisfied she has waived any objection to CUCF's failure to amend the complaint. See Bielecki v. Boissel, 715 A.2d 571, 574 (R.I.1998) (failure to amend did not affect validity of final judgment where adequate evidence 8. CUCF agreed to dismiss this claim t......
-
Larkin v. Arthurs
...2016) (internal quotation marks omitted); see B.S. International Ltd. v. JMAM, LLC , 13 A.3d 1057, 1062 (R.I. 2011) ; Bielecki v. Boissel , 715 A.2d 571, 575 (R.I. 1998). If, in our review of the record, "it becomes clear to us that the record indicates that competent evidence supports the ......
-
Boyle v. Laurelli, C.A. NO. PC01-4575 (R.I. Super 4/17/2007)
...it is within the discretion of the trial justice to award costs to the prevailing party in a civil action. See, e.g., Bielecki v. Boissel, 715 A.2d 571, 575 (R.I. 1998); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tavarez, 797 A.2d 480 (R.I. 2002); Chiaradio v. Falck, 794 A.2d 494 (R.I. 2002). When deciding w......
-
Randeau v. Laplante
... ... concerning the intent in establishing joint account with ... adult son); Bielecki v. Boissel , 715 A.2d 571 (R.I ... 1998) (affirming trial judge's determination that joint ... account was created for convenience only ... ...