In re Estate of Glenn E. Griggs Patricia Griggs v. David Heal, the Limited Guardian for the Late Glenn E. Griggs In re Estate of Glenn E. Griggs

Citation: 63 A.3d 867Docket: 012-19-Appeal, 2012-20-Appeal, 2012-21-Appeal

Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island; April 12, 2013; Rhode Island; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the consolidated cases of In re Estate of Glenn E. Griggs, the appellants, Nancy Griggs, Patricia Griggs, and Lauren Griggs, appealed the Superior Court's dismissal of their appeals from a Warwick Probate Court order. They contended that the trial justice erred in dismissing their appeals due to an inadequate record, as mandated by G.L. 1956, § 33-23-1. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing submissions and the record, determined that no cause for further briefing was shown and affirmed the Superior Court's judgments. 

The background includes a protracted legal dispute beginning in 2000, when Lauren Griggs sought guardianship of her father, Glenn E. Griggs. Following an emergency guardianship petition by his son, Dan Griggs, the Probate Court granted temporary limited co-guardianship to David Heal and Dan Griggs on June 26, 2003. The appellants resisted disclosing Mr. Griggs's location and unsuccessfully sought to vacate the Probate Court's decision. A contempt ruling against the appellants followed in 2005, leading to David Heal's appointment as permanent guardian. After Glenn E. Griggs's death in 2007, the appellants made continuous, unsuccessful legal challenges. Ultimately, on December 13, 2010, the Probate Court imposed compensatory contempt sanctions against the appellants amounting to approximately $447,000. Following their appeal to the Superior Court, which lacked a complete record, the trial justice dismissed the appeals. The appellants subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the dismissal.

The Court applies a de novo standard of review for appeals alleging legal errors, as established in Warwick Sewer Authority v. Carlone and N. M Properties, LLC v. Town of West Warwick. The guardian contends that Nancy's claim was filed beyond the twenty-day jurisdictional limit outlined in G.L. 1956 § 33-23-1(a)(1), arguing her appeal was improperly before the Superior Court. Nancy counters that January 3 was a statutory holiday, impacting the filing timeline. The Court, having affirmed the dismissal of all appeals, found it unnecessary to resolve this issue.

The appellants argue the trial justice erred in determining non-compliance with § 33-23-1's timing requirements and in denying an extension to consider the merits of their cases. They also claim that a contempt finding and sanctions should be vacated due to the Probate Court's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and the lack of specificity in the order they allegedly violated. The appellee asserts the trial justice's dismissal was correct, emphasizing that a sufficient record must be submitted for the Superior Court to consider additions. The appellee also argues that the Probate Court had the inherent authority to impose sanctions, which was not negated by Glenn Griggs's death, and moved to dismiss the appeals due to the appellants' failure to provide a transcript of the January 24, 2011 hearing.

The Court first addressed the appellee’s motion to dismiss based on the lack of a transcript. Under Article I, Rule 10(b)(1) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure, appellants must order a necessary transcript within twenty days of filing a notice of appeal. Although the appellants indicated they would order a transcript, they did not follow through. The Court noted that proceeding without a transcript is risky unless the appeal only challenges legal rulings clearly documented in the record. Despite the appellants' failure to inform the court that they would not order the transcript, the Court determined that the appeals involved questions of law sufficiently reflected in the Superior Court record, thereby denying the motion to dismiss.

Section 33-23-1(a)(2) mandates that appellants must file a certified copy of the claim, record, and reasons for appeal within thirty days of the order being appealed. In this case, the appellants only submitted the decision and order from December 13, 2010, without any additional record. They filed a motion under Section 33-23-1(c) to extend the deadline for filing the probate record, which allows for extensions if the transcript or recording is ordered within the specified timeframe but is unavailable by the deadline. The trial justice determined that Section 33-23-1(c) pertains specifically to transcripts and that the term "transcript" does not encompass the entire record. The appellants argued for a broader interpretation, but the court referenced Griggs v. Estate of Griggs, emphasizing that the appeal process requires a substantial record from the outset. The trial justice noted that jurisdictional deadlines cannot be extended except for transcript filing under subsection (c). The appellants failed to provide any part of the record, moving for an extension instead, which was inconsistent with prior rulings stating that a substantial record must be filed to perfect an appeal. Consequently, the trial justice's dismissal of the appellants' appeals was deemed correct, as they did not meet the necessary filing requirements.

Concerns were raised regarding the authority of the Probate Court to oversee a guardianship case for a deceased ward and the severity of sanctions imposed without a jury trial. However, meaningful review was hindered by the absence of a complete record. The court could not assess whether the Superior Court properly issued execution while the matter was under appeal, as this issue was not presented for review. It was noted that the Probate Court judge indicated the appellants had the opportunity to challenge the evidence related to attorneys’ fees and costs but did not object, thereby waiving their right to examine the guardian's counsel under oath. Ultimately, the judgments of the Superior Court were affirmed, and the case record was ordered to be returned to the Superior Court. The opinion was filed by Chief Justice Paul A. Suttell on April 12, 2013, with Justices Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia concurring. The case involved Patricia Griggs as appellant against David Heal, the limited guardian of the late Glenn E. Griggs.