Wenda Branson v. Marion P. Louttit, individually and in her capacities as Trustee of the Augusta P. Hathaway Living Trust and Custodian for Jonathan H. Louttit, II and Caroline Hathaway Louttit, minor children

Citations

• 213 A.3d 417

Syllabus

After the death of their mother, Augusta Hathaway, the plaintiff, Wenda Branson, brought this action against her sister, Marion Louttit, challenging the validity of amendments to Ms. Hathaway's inter vivos trust and gifts of interest in a family limited partnership. After a trial, the jury found that Ms. Hathaway lacked the testamentary capacity to amend her trust and that the defendant had unduly influenced Ms. Hathaway, thereby causing Ms. Hathaway to execute the challenged amendments and gifts. The jury also found that the defendant had breached her fiduciary duty as trustee of the inter vivos trust. Following the verdict, the defendant renewed her motion for judgment as a matter of law and moved for a new trial. The trial justice denied those motions as to the claims of undue influence and testamentary capacity, but granted both with respect to the claim that defendant had breached her fiduciary duty. The parties filed cross appeals. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of laches did not bar the plaintiff's claims because the defendant could not show that she was prejudiced by any delay in bringing the case. The Court further held that sufficient evidence existed in the record to support the plaintiff's claim of undue influence, that the instructions imparted by the trial justice fairly covered the jury's charge to weigh the expert opinions provided and to assess their credibility, and that the expert's testimony regarding his understanding of the meaning of undue influence did not depart in any meaningful way from the definition of undue influence adopted by the Court. The Court held, therefore, that the trial justice was correct to deny the defendant's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for new trial on that issue. Because the Court determined that the challenged gifts and trust amendments were properly nullified on the grounds of undue influence, the Court determined that the issue of Ms. Hathaway's testamentary capacity had become moot. Addition