Forcier v. Forcier, 87-454-A
| Decision Date | 18 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-454-A,87-454-A |
| Citation | 558 A.2d 212 |
| Parties | Joseph A. FORCIER v. Charles W. FORCIER et al. ppeal. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This matter is before the Supreme Court on appeal from an order of the Superior Court that denied a motion to vacate a judgment entered in an earlier law suit between the parties and to rescind a release executed by them in connection with that judgment. We affirm.
In order to understand the issues before us, we must recount some of the events giving rise to and resulting in the termination of the earlier action. In June 1982 Joseph A. Forcier of Woonsocket, Rhode Island (plaintiff), brought suit against his father, Adelard Forcier, and his brother, Charles W. Forcier (defendants). Charles and Adelard, formerly residents of Woonsocket, were living in Florida at the time of the actions below. It was alleged that Charles had, through undue influence and coercion, induced Adelard to exclude plaintiff from Adelard's property and estate. In that action plaintiff also alleged that Adelard did not fully understand the results of his actions. Charles's and Adelard's answers denied all of the allegations of wrongdoing.
Discovery was pursued and defendants answered interrogatories, responded to motions for more responsive answers, and filed amended answers prior to trial. Requests for the production of wills and trust documents were complied with, as were requests for admissions. During pretrial discovery Adelard, Charles, Joseph, and Adelard's attorney, George Beaudet of Woonsocket, Rhode Island, were all deposed. Joseph's motion to have Adelard examined by a physician was granted, and the physician rendered the opinion that Adelard was not competent. Relying on that development, Charles petitioned the Florida Circuit Court, Broward County, Probate Division, to be appointed as Adelard's guardian. Over Joseph's objection Charles was appointed guardian. Joseph did not appeal. The Rhode Island Superior Court then appointed Charles to be Adelard's guardian ad litem in the pending suit.
During the trial Charles testified that the approximate value of Adelard's trust estate was $180,000 and that there was $300,000, "maybe more," in joint accounts outside the trust. Those accounts were held jointly by Charles and Adelard or by another brother, Paul, and Adelard. This information, which came out when Charles was under cross-examination, was not pursued further by Joseph.
After a day-and-a-half of trial the parties entered into a settlement agreement in which defendants paid $35,000 in exchange for Joseph's release of all claims. On May 13, 1986, a consent judgment was entered in the Superior Court action by the trial justice, to which the attorneys for the parties assented. It recited that judgment was entered for defendants, that plaintiff's complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and that a lis pendens recorded with the recorder of deeds in the city of Woonsocket was discharged.
On May 8, 1987, Joseph filed a motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2) and (3) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. With the motion Joseph filed a supporting affidavit in which he stated that Charles was guilty of misrepresentation when he filed the guardianship petition in Florida setting forth that Adelard had approximately $180,000 in trust assets. Joseph stated that a later accounting showed that the assets were actually in the amount of $637,000 or more. Joseph claimed that this constituted newly discovered evidence and that due diligence on his part did not inform him of the true facts in time to file for a new trial under Rule 59(b).
It was asserted that Charles had filed an accounting of assets in the Florida Probate Court, but that the accounting had been incorrectly placed in another court file involving Adelard's guardianship and was not correctly filed until after the trial. Joseph asserted in his affidavit that "had I been aware of such numbers and assets my thinking about entering into a settlement could very well [have] been different."
Charles, in his responsive affidavit, asserted that Joseph had engaged Florida...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lundgren v. Pawtucket Firefighters Ass'n Local No. 1261
...not disturb the court's ruling on a motion to vacate absent a showing of an abuse of discretion or an error of law. Forcier v. Forcier, 558 A.2d 212, 214 (R.I.1989). The motion justice believed that plaintiffs failed to serve IAFF properly and that Hoopis was mistaken when he thought he rep......
-
Claire B. Martel Trust v. Audette
...of proof on a motion to vacate rests on the moving party. Iddings v. McBurney, 657 A.2d 550, 553 (R.I. 1995) (quoting Forcier v. Forcier, 558 A.2d 212, 214 (R.I. 1989)). The denial of a motion to vacate a judgment "is within the sound discretion of a trial justice, and will not be reversed ......
-
Renewable Res., Inc. v. Town of Westerly
...absent a showing of abuse of discretion or error of law.” Iddings v. McBurney, 657 A.2d 550, 553 (R.I.1995) (citing Forcier v. Forcier, 558 A.2d 212, 214 (R.I.1989) ). Moreover, “[t]he burden of proof is on the moving party.” Id. (citing Forcier, 558 A.2d at 214).IIIDiscussionOn appeal, pla......
-
Iddings v. McBurney
...justice and his or her ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion or error of law. Forcier v. Forcier, 558 A.2d 212, 214 (R.I.1989); Stevens v. Gulf Oil Corp., 108 R.I. 209, 210, 274 A.2d 163, 164 (1971). The burden of proof is on the moving party. Forcie......