Flynn v. Pearce, No. 643-A

• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: POWERS
• Citation: 106 R.I. 323,259 A.2d 401
• Parties: Robert T. FLYNN v. Grace C. PEARCE, Administratrix of the Estate of Henry C. Cochrane. ppeal.
• Docket Number: No. 643-A
• Decision Date: 04 December 1969

Page 401

259 A.2d 401 106 R.I. 323 Robert T. FLYNN
v.
Grace C. PEARCE, Administratrix of the Estate of Henry C. Cochrane. No. 643-Appeal. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. Dec. 4, 1969.
Reargument Denied Jan. 8, 1970.

[106 R.I. 331] Fred Brosco, Robert T. Flynn, Providence, for plaintiff.

Isidore Kirshenbaum, Alfred Factor, Providence, for defendant.

OPINION

[106 R.I. 324] POWERS, Justice.

This is a civil action by an attorney seeking to collect compensation for professional services as well as for incidental expenses incurred in connection with the services alleged. The case was tried to a Superior Court justice and a jury which returned a verdict for the defendant.

Thereafter, plaintiff seasonably moved for a new trial and, from the trial justice's order granting said motion, defendant duly appealed to this court.

The defendant is the administratrix of the estate of her late brother Henry C. Cochrane of whose estate and person she was also guardian at the time of decedent's death, having served as such fiduciary since 1942. During the guardianship period, the deceased had owned and operated a farm in Johnston, Rhode Island. Some time in 1957 he engaged one Jessie Mae Trayner to live on said farm as his housekeeper. Thereafter, namely June 10, 1959, Cochrane, although under guardianship, entered into a marriage cermony with his housekeeper, the ceremony taking place in Seekonk, Massachusetts. This union was contrary to the wishes and judgment of Cochrane's guardian, defendant here, and considerable litigation ensued. See Pearce v. Cochrane, 95 R.I. 207, 186 A.2d 68.

Page 402

In connection therewith, Cochrane engaged the instant plaintiff as counsel to represent him and Jessie. There is no question that plaintiff rendered substantial legal services for his clients over a period of years. He admittedly received compensation from time to time but the records that he kept in connection with his services were sketchy at best.

On the death of Henry Cochrane, his sister and former guardian applied for and was duly appointed administratrix of her brother's estate. The plaintiff filed a claim for legal [106 R.I. 325] services amounting to $7,500 which claim, defendant, in her capacity as administratrix, disallowed. Thereupon, plaintiff commenced the instant action. At trial, he testified in great detail as to the nature and extent of the services he rendered and of the expenses incurred in connection therewith. The total value of his services, together with expenses, according to his testimony was $9,160. Two members of the Rhode Island Bar testified that the charges plaintiff was making for such services as those concerning which he testified were reasonable and fair.

It is worthy of note that the legal services for which plaintiff seeks to be compensated consisted largely of representing Henry and Jessie Mae in connection with litigation commenced in some instances by defendant as Henry's guardian and in other instances commenced by Henry in an effort to have defendant removed as guardian. The legal problems were of divers nature and, as jurisdiction appeared, were litigated in the Johnston Probate Court, District, Superior, Family and Supreme Courts.

It was not defendant's position before the jury that plaintiff had not in fact rendered the services for which he sought to be recompensed. Rather, she offered testimonial and documentary evidence tending to establish that plaintiff had been paid for his various services at the time they were rendered. Further, she contended that, since Henry had been under guardianship at the times he purported to engage plaintiff's professional services, Henry lacked capacity to contract for these services in his own name. It was also defendant's position that the marriage ceremony in Seekonk was a nullity and, consequentially, services rendered for Jessie Mae at Henry's engagement were likewise not chargeable to his estate.

The trial justice instructed the jury that plaintiff had the burden of proving by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he had, in fact, rendered the services to which he testified;[106 R.I. 326] that the charges for such services were reasonable and fair, and further, that since, as defendant contended, Henry was under guardianship at the times he engaged plaintiff, it was required of plaintiff to prove that the services rendered were 'necessaries' within the meaning of G.L. 1956, § 33-15-13. ¹

The trial justice further instructed the jury that by reason of § 15-1-5 ² a purported marriage ceremony was a nulllity if either of the parties thereto were a lunatic

Page 403

or idiot. He emphasized that the instant litigation did not involve the validity of Henry's marital status but that, since Henry's mental capacity was in issue, the question of plaintiff's legal services to Jessie Mae at Henry's engagement presented a question of fact which the jury must decide on the basis of conflicting expert medical testimony.

The defendant's verdict is general and whether it was reached by the jury on a rejection of plaintiff's evidence on one or all of the essential elements of the latter's case is not even open to an educated guess. Be that as it may, the trial justice's decision granting the new trial motion represents a painstaking performance of the duty imposed [106 R.I. 327] by the rule...