Long-running trust dispute ends with multimillion-dollar verdict

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — After 11 years of litigation that included multiple trips to Newport Probate Court, an appeal to the state Supreme Court, and litigation in Utah, a jury earlier this year sided with Melissa M. Horne’s client in a one-of-a-kind trust dispute.

“I’m not sure I’ve had a case like this before or will have another one like it,” Horne reflects. “There has been a whole set of circumstances that have coalesced to allow this case to be what it was, from the length to the complication to the litigation in multiple courts to the personal nature of the issues.”

The dispute involved the estate of Donelson C. Glassie, a successful entrepreneur in Newport. At the time of his death in 2011, he had been married twice and had a total of six children.

In conjunction with a divorce from his second wife, Glassie signed a property settlement agreement in which he acknowledged that there had been trusts established for two older daughters, Alison and Georgia, and that he would establish a trust for his youngest daughter, Jacquelin, and fund it at the rate of $10,000 a year until it was equal to the trusts for the older daughters.

After Glassie’s death, Jacquelin learned of the trust and discovered a large discrepancy between the value of her trust and those of her sisters.

In spring 2012, Jacquelin filed suit against the executor of her father’s estate in Newport Probate Court, kicking off the long-running litigation that ended in March with a $1,164,138 verdict. Jurors awarded an amount equal to the difference between the value of Jacquelin’s trust and the value of the trusts for Alison and Georgia as of a date shortly before Glassie’s death.

Adding prejudgment interest of $1,692,434, the total judgment stands at $2,856,572.

Horne recently sat down with Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly to share the history and challenges of the case, which still isn’t over — the executor has appealed the verdict to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

Q. How did you become involved in this dispute?

A. The case was being handled in the firm before I joined, and when I came to Higgins in 2014, I was asked to get involved and eventually became the lead attorney. [By that point], the executor had denied Jacquelin’s claim, and she had appealed the denial to the Newport Superior Court. Unfortunately, not too long after that, Jacquelin passed away.

Her sister Alison, who was the executrix of her estate, was substituted as the plaintiff. She took her responsibility for fulfilling her sister’s wishes and seeing this matter through very seriously.

Q. What happened once Alison took over the litigation?

A. The first thing the executor of Donelson’s estate did after Alison was substituted was move for summary judgment, asserting that only the trustee of Jacquelin’s trust had standing to pursue the claim. That motion was granted and affirmed on appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

In the meantime, Alison went to Wells Fargo Bank, the trustee of Jacquelin’s trust, and asked them to either assume the litigation or to assign to her whatever claim they might have against Donelson’s estate.

Q. At one point, the parties found themselves in court in Utah. How did that come about?

A. After lots of back and forth, Wells Fargo filed suit against Alison and all of the other contingent beneficiaries of Jacquelin’s trust, which provided that following her death it would be distributed to a description of certain parties. Alison and Georgia had a different interpretation of that language than the potential contingent beneficiaries — Donelson’s children from another marriage — so because of the disagreement, Wells Fargo filed a case in Utah asking the court to interpret that language.

In response, Alison filed a counterclaim asserting that Wells Fargo breached its duty to Jacquelin and her trust by not pursuing the claim against Donelson’s estate. In Utah, there was a partial settlement of that litigation that resulted in Alison as executrix receiving an assignment of any claims Wells Fargo as trustee might have against Donelson’s estate.

Q. Did that settlement agreement rebut the executor’s argument about Alison stepping into Jacquelin’s case?

A. Having cured the lack of standing defense raised by Donelson’s executor, we came back to Rhode Island and filed a new claim in Probate Court. This time, the executor objected to the claim on the ground that Alison shouldn’t be allowed to file a claim out of time. The Probate Court agreed so we went back to Superior Court.

After considerable discovery — and the (COVID-19) pandemic — we had a bench trial in November 2021 after which the trial justice entered an order that Alison should be allowed to file her claim out of time. My argument was that this was the same claim Jacquelin had filed back in the spring of 2012, and it wasn’t fair for the executor to have taken advantage of the standing technicality to now claim it was too late for her to file this claim.

Alison went and got the assignment from the trustee and there was no prejudice to either the trustee — because Donelson’s estate was still open — or the executor, who knew about this issue the whole time.

Q. Once the jury trial was finally held, when did you realize that your client had at long last secured a victory?

A. Trial lasted about two weeks in March 2023. The jury deliberated roughly four hours and came back with a judgment that basically equaled the difference between the value of Alison and Georgia’s trusts and the value of Jacquelin’s trust just before their father’s death. That was the last date upon which he could have fulfilled his agreement in the property settlement to fund Jacquelin’s trust until it was equal to the trusts for Alison and Georgia.

In addition, statutory prejudgment interest at the rate of 12 percent per year was added by the clerk to the amount of the jury verdict, so the judgment entered reflects both the verdict and the prejudgment interest. And because this case has been pending for so long, that’s a lot of interest.

I don’t think it really hit me until they started polling the jury. This case had been going on for so long and had been such a fight it really wasn’t until the foreman was reading the answers to the jury questionnaire that I started to think, “Oh, my goodness.”

Q. What was your biggest challenge with this case?

A. I think the length of time. This case was pending for so long that there was a tremendous amount of documents as well as events that happened during the case, from the death of the original plaintiff to litigation in multiple states. My challenge was keeping everything straight and organizing it into a coherent presentation to the jury.

Q. Where does the case stand now?

A. The executor of Donelson’s estate appealed the judgment, and that appeal was dismissed. Now the executor has appealed the order dismissing the appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will overturn an order dismissing an appeal only if it finds the trial justice abused his discretion in dismissing the appeal. We believe the trial justice issued a well-reasoned decision and did not abuse his discretion.

In theory, the executor could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, as the executor has made it pretty clear throughout the proceedings that he would do anything not to pay this claim.

Q. What is your takeaway from this litigation?

A. I think the takeaway from this case is that lawyers and their clients should be reasonable about the positions they take and not permit personal feelings about a case or the parties to it to allow them to take unreasonable positions. This is a case that probably could have settled for about $1 million almost 12 years ago. And instead, there is now a judgment for somewhere around $3 million [as the interest continues to run], with millions probably spent on attorney fees.

Correy E. Stephenson is a reporter with Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly.