Estate of Giuliano v. Giuliano

• Decision Date: 20 June 2008
• Docket Number: No. 2007-100-Appeal.,2007-100-Appeal.
• Citation: 949 A.2d 386
• Parties: ESTATE OF Louis J. GIULIANO, Sr., et al. v. Louis J. GIULIANO, Jr.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

949 A.2d 386

ESTATE OF Louis J. GIULIANO, Sr., et al. v. Louis J. GIULIANO, Jr.

No. 2007-100-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 20, 2008.

Jeffrey Techentin, Esq., Providence, for petitioner.

Thomas Dickinson, Esq., for respondent.

Present: WILLIAMS, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, SUTTELL, and ROBINSON, JJ.

OPINION

Justice ROBINSON for the Court.

The defendant, Louis J. Giuliano, Jr., appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, the Estate of Louis J. Giuliano, Sr., and Patricia Lett.

This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument on May 14, 2008, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After considering the record, the memoranda submitted by the parties, and the oral arguments of counsel, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown and that the case should be decided at this time.

For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the Superior Courts grant of summary judgment.

Facts and Travel

1. The Probate Court Proceedings

On February 8, 2006, defendant's father, Louis J. Giuliano, Sr., died. Shortly after the senior Mr. Giuliano's death, Patricia Lett, on behalf of the Estate of Louis J. Giuliano, Sr., filed with the Probate Court for the Town of Smithfield a petition to probate the purported will of Mr. Giuliano.¹ Ms. Lett was the named executrix of the will, which specified that after debts, expenses, and taxes were paid, tangible property designated in any letter of instructions was distributed, and jointly held accounts became the property of the living joint holders of those accounts, the residue of the decedent's estate would be distributed to a trust that the decedent and Ms. Lett had established before he created the will.

The defendant (decedent's son) objected to the probate of the will, challenging the authenticity of the testator's signature; he alleged that it was not actually his father's signature. On April 27, 2006, a hearing was held before the Probate Court. The attorney who drafted the will (the Drafting Attorney) testified at that hearing that he specifically recalled the decedent's execution of the will. In an affidavit² notarized by the Drafting Attorney, the signatures of two other attorneys (to whom we shall refer as Signer One and Signer Two) appeared beneath a statement that was a part of the affidavit; that statement declared (1) that the signers had, in the presence of each other, witnessed the execution of the will by the decedent and (2) that the decedent appeared to be of sound mind.

At the hearing in the Probate Court, the Drafting Attorney also testified that the two persons who signed the affidavit had witnessed the execution of the will. Signer One testified that he had witnessed the decedent's execution of the will, which occurred in a conference room at his law firm; he testified, however, that he could not recall if Signer Two was present at the same time as he had witnessed the will. Signer Two testified that he did not have a specific recollection of the events that occurred during the execution of the will because so many years had passed. Signer Two did identify the witness signature as his own. Offering the Probate Court an interpretation based on the "normal course of action" that his law firm would have followed when a will was executed there, Signer Two testified that, "based on past patterns and practices," he believed that the decedent had signed the will in his presence as well as in the presence of Signer One and that they then had signed in the presence of each other.

Testimony was offered in support of defendant's challenge to the authenticity of the decedent's signature that appeared on the will. The decedent's former wife, his daughter, and his son (defendant) all identified documents on which the decedent's signature appeared. Curtis Baggett, a handwriting expert, compared documents containing the decedent's known signature with the signature on the will, and he concluded that the signature on the will was not the decedent's own. He offered testimony concerning his methodology in examining the signatures and his findings on the technical differences between the shape of letters in the known signatures and the signature on the will. Mr. Baggett testified that it was his opinion that the signature on the will was not the true signature of Louis J. Giuliano, Sr.³

On July 21, 2006, the judge who presided over the hearing in the Probate Court issued a written decision concerning defendant's objection to the probate of decedent's will. The judge concluded that neither side's handwriting expert was particularly persuasive, but he added that he thought the methodology that plaintiffs' expert used was more generally accepted in the field. He stated that the testimony of the three attorneys established that the signature on the will was "more probably than not" the signature of the decedent.

Nevertheless, the judge denied plaintiffs' petition for the probate of the will on the grounds that the witnesses to the will's execution could not remember whether they had witnessed the decedent sign the will in the presence of each other or whether they signed as witnesses in the decedent's presence. The Probate Court judge found as follows:

"[T]he proponents have not shown more probably than not that both witnesses signed in the presence of the testator and in the presence of each other or that both witnesses were present at the same time. These are essential elements."

Accordingly, the judge ruled that, because plaintiffs could not demonstrate that the statutory requirements had been met, the petition to probate the will would be denied. The judge entered an order to that effect on August 3, 2006.

2. The Superior Court Proceedings

Thereafter, on August 31, 2006, plaintiffs filed a complaint⁴ in the Superior Court in which they asked the Superior Court to order the Probate Court to admit the will to probate. In that document, plaintiffs argued that the Probate Court judge had erroneously concluded that the will was not properly executed.

In November of that year, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment; they asserted that the affidavit attached to the will established that there was no dispute that the witnesses to the will signed in the presence of the decedent and each other and that the decedent signed in the witnesses' presence. The plaintiffs argued that the statutory requirements for executing the will had been met and that the case should be remanded to the Probate Court with an order that that court admit the will to probate.

For his part, defendant objected to plaintiffs' contention, arguing that genuine issues of material fact existed with respect to the proper execution vel non of the will. Pointing to the fact that the witnesses were unable to state whether or not they had witnessed the decedent's signature in each other's presence, defendant asserted that summary judgment would be inappropriate. In addition, defendant submitted an affidavit from Curtis Baggett, the handwriting expert, in which Mr. Baggett opined that the decedent did not sign the will.

On January 2, 2007, a hearing was held in the Superior Court on plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

With respect to the handwriting expert's affidavit, the hearing justice remarked that it "doesn't say much." In response to that remark, counsel for defendant stated that the basis for Mr. Baggett's conclusions was set forth more fully in his testimony before the Probate Court. The hearing justice concluded that, because the affidavit was "so cursory," she was unable to find a genuine question of material fact. Reading the affidavit, the hearing justice stated:

"All he says is, `I base my opinion on my analysis of the signatures on the known and question[ed] documents and my use of accepted forensic document examination tools, principles and techniques.'"

After having quoted those words from the expert's affidavit, the hearing justice sardonically commented:

"Well, that's helpful.

"* * *

"How can I say, `Oh, wow, this dispute is genuine.'?"

The hearing justice characterized the content of the handwriting expert's affidavit as "a bald statement," and she questioned how such "a bald statement" could be a predicate for the denial of summary judgment.

Counsel for defendant countered the hearing justice's queries by articulating the reasons why defendant thought the case should proceed beyond the summary judgment stage. He contended that the dispute was genuine in view of the fact that, in counsel's words, "a witness with the suitable qualifications is testifying in that affidavit that his professional conclusion is that the signatures are not genuine." He further argued:

"I think in the case where we're talking about the genuineness of a signature, your Honor, and the document examiner says that * * * his professional conclusion is that the signature is not genuine, that that does raise an issue of fact for the trier of fact."

The hearing justice disagreed with defendant's arguments in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. She stated:

"I'm going to grant the motion. I'm not satisfied that based on this affidavit that the dispute is a genuine dispute. I understand that experts can't be expected to detail every bit of their findings in an affidavit, or even in an interrogatory answer, or even in deposition testimony, but he has not come forward to give me enough so that I can, with confidence, say that this dispute is genuine. As I said before, I think the legislature enacted this whole process of self-executing affidavits to create some sort of presumptive effect. I don't think I've completely thought it through, but that's what I see that we have here, and the question is whether this is enough to get us by and shift the burden on to the estate."

The hearing justice additionally remarked that she did not...