Smile of the Child v. Estate of Papadopouli
| Decision Date | 11 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2020-29-Appeal.,NP 17-205 |
| Citation | 272 A.3d 99 |
| Parties | The SMILE OF THE CHILD v. The ESTATE OF Matoula PAPADOPOULI. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Kevin B. Murphy, Esq., Brett L. Messinger, Esq., Pro Hac Vice, for Plaintiff.
Peter Brent Regan, Esq., for Defendant.
Present: Suttell, C.J., Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.
The probate case underlying this appeal involves an international will dispute impacting the probate of the estate of the decedent, Matoula A. Papadopouli (the decedent), who held dual citizenship in the United States and Greece. The plaintiff, To Hamogelo Toy Paidiou, a/k/a The Smile of the Child,1 appeals from a Superior Court judgment affirming an "order of the Middletown Probate Court regarding the Estate of Matoula Papadopouli" (the estate) "and denying the appeal of [the plaintiff]." On appeal before the Supreme Court, the plaintiff asserts that the Superior Court trial justice erred in (1) determining that a true conflict exists between Rhode Island and Greek law; (2) applying Rhode Island law rather than Greek law; (3) allowing the payment of fees and costs incurred in a foreign will dispute as administrative costs payable from assets of the estate; and (4) determining that Rhode Island law does not allow for disgorgement. The plaintiff therefore asks this Court to reverse the decision of the Superior Court trial justice and to direct the trial justice to order that the administratrix disgorge and return the funds expended "in violation of the [a]dministratrix's duty." For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
The decedent was born in Newport, Rhode Island, on January 12, 1955. In addition to holding dual citizenship in the United States and Greece, she owned property in both countries, including in Rhode Island. In October 2014, she was diagnosed with stage IV gliosarcoma
, a rare form of malignant cancer of the brain. The decedent passed away in Volos, Greece, on October 4, 2015. At the time of her death, the decedent was unmarried, her parents had predeceased her, and she had no children.
After the death of the decedent, an administration petition was filed in the Middletown Probate Court, seeking the appointment of Cynthia Kendall—the decedent's cousin—as the administratrix; according to the estate, Kendall's father, Charles Michael, was the decedent's next of kin at the time of her passing. On October 28, 2015, the petition was granted, and Kendall was appointed administratrix of the estate.
Meanwhile in Greece, plaintiff presented a holographic will that plaintiff asserts was drafted by the decedent on October 2, 2013, two years prior to her death, naming plaintiff as the sole beneficiary of the entirety of her estate, with the exception of a life estate in her home in Skiathos, Greece, to Ioannis Kontomanis. On March 21, 2016, Michael2 filed a lawsuit before the Court of First Instance in Volos, Greece, and requested that the Greek court declare the holographic will void on the grounds that it was not drafted by the decedent herself.
The estate attached an expert handwriting analysis to a written submission in the Superior Court in the present case; the analysis concluded that the holographic will was written by a third party and that the decedent's purported signature was written sometime after the year 2013 at a time "when her brain disorder
had already emerged, leading to the corresponding effects on her cognitive functions."3
On or about May 26, 2016, plaintiff filed a petition in the Middletown Probate Court requesting that the probate court enter an order (1) directing the administratrix to identify assets of the estate that are subject to administration; (2) directing the administratrix to return funds that were distributed or obtained by the estate until the final determination of the proper beneficiary; and (3) staying any further administration of the estate until the disposition of the Greek litigation. A hearing on the petition was held on July 19, 2016. On August 30, 2016, the probate court ordered (1) the administratrix to identify and take possession of the assets of the estate; (2) the administratrix to identify any estate asset that was distributed and take appropriate steps to have those assets returned to the estate; (3) that there shall be no distribution of the estate assets pending final disposition of the Greek litigation or by further order of the probate court; and (4) the administratrix and plaintiff to, within seven days, disclose any additional information they had regarding the assets of the estate in the United States, Greece, or elsewhere. The estate assets included bank accounts at BankNewport, Stifel Bank, and ABN-AMRO Bank. The plaintiff thereafter sent a letter to Stifel Bank claiming that it was the sole devisee of the estate and requesting that the bank freeze all accounts held in the decedent's name; Stifel Bank complied.
On February 7, 2017, the administratrix, having already utilized the money in the BankNewport account, filed a miscellaneous petition with the probate court requesting an order granting her full access to all of the estate's accounts in order to pay expenses related to protecting and maintaining estate assets during the pendency of the will contest in Greece, including expenses relative to the will contest itself, to which plaintiff objected. On March 15, 2017, the probate court held a hearing on the miscellaneous petition. On April 13, 2017, the probate court issued an order (1) lifting the freeze on the Stifel Bank account; (2) allowing the administratrix to access the Stifel Bank account to pay for costs associated with the will contest in Greece, finding that such costs were "an extension of the administration of the Estate and her duty to protect and defend the Estate assets"; and (3) requiring any additional payments to be approved by the probate court. The plaintiff thereafter filed an appeal of the probate court order in the Superior Court.
After the parties filed written memoranda, a hearing was held in the Superior Court on July 25, 2019. The plaintiff argued that the probate judge had erred by failing to apply Greek law. The plaintiff contended that, because "the dispute [over the validity of the holographic will] is between a Greek citizen who has challenged the [w]ill, and a Greek corporation," Greek law should apply to preclude the administratrix from using estate assets to fund costs and fees associated with the will contest in Greece. The plaintiff asserted that, under Greek law, "it is just totally unheard of for a [c]ourt to order the payment of attorney's fees and costs in regard to a [w]ill contest[,]" and that, "if there was a payment on it under Greek law, it would actually be a criminal offense." The plaintiff also submitted an affidavit from a Greek attorney to that effect, the accuracy and veracity of which was not challenged by the estate.
The plaintiff further argued that, even if Greek law did not apply, there is no basis under Rhode Island law for fees and expenses associated with a will contest to be paid from the estate. The plaintiff contended that the probate court acted erroneously in calling the expenditures of the estate monies to support the will contest "an extension of" administrative costs because such expenses are not administrative fees.
The estate, in response, conceded that Greek law applies to determine the validity of the will; however, the estate argued that the question before the Superior Court was, "what are the duty and the rights of the administrat[rix] here in Rhode Island while that Greek action is pending[?]" The estate asserted that the probate court "was correct and reasonable" in determining that the administratrix "had a duty to the estate beneficiaries to protect the assets of the estate" and needed "to execute that duty." According to the estate, the actions of the probate judge "were reasonable and allowable under Rhode Island law." Furthermore, the estate argued that, "since the administratrix was relying upon the ourt's 2016 ruling, it would be inequitable * * * under those circumstances to require the administratrix to pay back or reimburse funds that were expended prior to this appeal being filed since she was relying in good faith on the [p]robate [c]ourt's order."
The trial justice issued a written decision on October 25, 2019. The trial justice began his discussion of the choice-of-law issue by finding that there was a true conflict between Greek law and Rhode Island law. He determined that, under Rhode Island law, "an administrator is entitled to reimbursement from the estate for reasonable expenses incurred during the litigation because the administrator has a duty to defend the will," citing McAlear v. McAlear , 62 R.I. 158, 4 A.2d 252 (1939) ; G.L. 1956 § 33-22-26 ; and G.L. 1956 § 9-14-25, while, under Greek law, such administrative "fees and costs associated with a will contest are borne by the parties, and not the estate."
The trial justice then reviewed the facts of the case to determine which "state" bore the most significant relationship to the events and the parties. The trial justice cited Najarian v. National Amusements, Inc. , 768 A.2d 1253 (R.I. 2001), for the policy considerations that Rhode Island courts use in making a choice-of-law determination, including the "(1) predictability of result; (2) maintenance of interstate and international order; (3) simplification of the judicial task; (4) advancement of the forum's governmental interests; and (5) application of the better rule of law." Najarian , 768 A.2d at 1255 (quoting Pardey v. Boulevard Billiard Club , 518 A.2d 1349, 1351 (R.I. 1986) ). The trial justice noted that "[a] court must have a rational basis for applying its own law, as required by the full faith and credit, due process, and equal protection clauses of the Federal Constitution." See Woodward v. Stewart , 104 R.I. 290, 296, 243...
To continue reading
Request your trial