Castruccio v. Estate of Castruccio
Decision Date | 14 February 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 1651,1651 |
Parties | SADIE M. CASTRUCCIO v. ESTATE OF PETER A. CASTRUCCIO |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County
Case No. 02-C-14-190282
UNREPORTED
Wright, Graeff, Salmon, James P. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Graeff, J.
*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.
This Court has reviewed multiple cases related to litigation involving Sadie M. Castruccio, appellant, and the estate of her deceased husband, Dr. Peter A. Castruccio (the "Estate"), appellee.1 In this appeal, Ms. Castruccio challenges the September 28, 2017, order of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County finding her in constructive civil contempt and directing her to pay the Estate's attorneys fees in the amount of $228,523.26.
Ms. Castruccio presents the following questions for this Court's review:
We answer the first question in the affirmative, and therefore, we shall reverse the order of the circuit court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Dr. Castruccio died on February 19, 2013. For much of his life, he worked at an office on Dicus Mill Road (the "Office"), which contained numerous records, papers, and other property, including a safe.2
Shortly after Dr. Castruccio's death, Ms. Castruccio directed her employee, Danny Stinchcomb, to change the locks at the Office. She also asked him to transfer a safe, file cabinets, books regarding her real estate business, and other documents from the Office to her residence. Among the documents removed from the Office were 2011 and 2012 tax records, which Ms. Castruccio provided to her accountant.
On March 13, 2013, Robert Cawood, counsel for the Estate, sent Mr. Kenneth Frank, counsel for Ms. Castruccio, a letter stating that he "had been informed that records and documents [were] being taken . . . from the business and being destroyed." Mr. Cawood advised that the "records and documents involve matters related to administration of the [E]state," and they "cannot be removed or destroyed." He asked Mr. Frank to "advise when a key [would] be made available to the business."
On April 5, 2013, several months after Ms. Castruccio had moved materials from the Office to her home, John Greiber, Jr., the personal representative of the Estate, petitioned the orphans' court to compel Ms. Castruccio to grant the Estate access to Dr. Castruccio's "Offices, Property, Records, and Papers."3 On July 16, 2013, the orphans' court granted the petition, and ordered (the "Access Order"), as follows:
Ms. Castruccio did not comply with Paragraphs B and D(1) of the Access Order within the specified deadlines. She did, however, by agreement with the Estate, permit the Estate an opportunity to inspect the Office on July 29, 2013, 13 days after the Access Order was issued.
On July 26, 2013, three days before the inspection, Ms. Castruccio's nephew, George Scardina, in the presence of Ms. Castruccio, was able to open the safe at Ms. Castruccio's residence. According to an affidavit filed by Mr. Frank on March 19, 2013, the process was videotaped, and a review revealed the contents of the safe. With respect to property of Dr. Castruccio or the Estate, the safe contained: (1) two $100,000 promissory notes payable to Mr. Castruccio by Mr. Greiber; and (2) the check register for Dr. Castruccio's Wells Fargo line on which Mr. Greiber's obligation under the promissory notes was recorded. Ms. Castruccio's position was that these items were taken back to the Office and scanned by the Estate on July 29, 2013.5
On July 29, 2013, counsel for the Estate and Mr. Greiber arrived at the Office to conduct an inspection. By prior agreement between the parties, the Estate was permitted to make copies of the documents and records in the Office, but it was not permitted to take originals. During the inspection, Ms. Castruccio's attorney prevented the Estate from looking at documents that belonged to Ms. Castruccio.
Following the July 29, 2013, inspection, the Estate made six additional requests to access the Office, on: (1) August 30, 2013; (2) November 15, 2013; (3) November 26, 2013; (4) May 19, 2014; (5) June 5, 2014; and (6) January 23, 2015. The Estate also made requests to access other properties owned by Dr. Castruccio on: (1) October 18, 2013; (2) November 26, 2013; and (3) February 12, 2015. The Estate did not gain access, but counsel for Ms. Castruccio stated that they offered to give access and the Estate refused.
On October 12, 2013, the Estate filed a Petition for Show Cause Order, requesting the orphans' court to issue an order to Ms. Castruccio and her counsel to show cause why they should not be held in constructive civil contempt for failing to comply with the Access Order. The petition asked the court to impose a $15,000 "civil fine" against Ms. Castruccio and her attorney "for the reasonable fees and costs actually incurred by the Estate . . . to prosecute its contempt petition."6
On October 23, 2013, Ms. Castruccio filed a response, indicating that they had located additional documents in response to the Estate's requests and would produce the documents. She submitted, therefore, that no show cause order was necessary.
On November 12, 2013, Ms. Castruccio and her attorneys filed a Certificate of Compliance with the Register of Wills, Anne Arundel County, which stated, as follows:
Each of the undersigned hereby certifies that they have not destroyed any property of Peter Adalbert Castruccio located in his offices at Dicus Mill Road as of the date of his death, and to the best of their knowledge any such property removed temporarily for inspection and/or copying has been returned.
The document, which was signed by Ms. Castruccio, Mr. Frank, and Mr. Jarashow, does not appear to have been "verified under oath," as required by Paragraph D(2) of the Access Order.
In a decision dated July 3, 2014, the orphans' court found Ms. Castruccio in contempt of the Access Order, stating that the order "was not complied with in a timely manner." Specifically, the court stated that it was concerned that Ms. Castruccio had not granted "additional unfettered or unrestricted access to Dr. Castruccio's office, property and papers." Accordingly, the orphans' court ordered that Ms. Castruccio provide the Estate "unfettered access to Dr. Castruccio's office, property and papers within 30 days" of the decision. The court also expressed concern that attorneys were not present when the safe was opened, and it ordered that Ms. Castruccio provide a "written inventory of all papers, property (including the contents of the safe) that were removed and/or returned from Dr. Castruccio's office since February 18, 2013."
On July 28, 2014, Ms. Castruccio appealed the order of the orphans' court to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County.7 While the appeal was pending, Ms. Castruccio filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the "[o]rphans' [c]ourt lacked jurisdiction to consider the Petition for Show Cause Order." She included as an exhibit a new "certificate of compliance," which stated:
Each of the undersigned hereby certifies under the penalties of perjury, that they have not destroyed any property of Peter Adalbert Castruccio located in his offices at Dicus Mill Road as of the date of his death, and to the best of their knowledge all such property is now, and has always been in the building in which his office was located, except to the extent any such records were temporarily provided to an outside service for scanning or copying, in which case copies were provided to the Estate and all such records were returned to the office immediately thereafter....
To continue reading
Request your trial