A Million Dollar Question: Dear Friend Or Significant Other?

The Rhode Island Superior Court declined to grant judgment on the pleadings by concluding that whether a decedent’s bequest to a person if he was her “significant other” at the time of her passing was a disputed fact that could not be resolved on the pleadings

Article III of the Rapaporte Trust provides for specific dispositions upon Ms. Rapaporte’s death. This dispute arises out of one disposition in particular:

“(4) One million dollars ($1,000,000) to my dear friend, Karl Gardner, of Burlington, Massachusetts, if he survives me by thirty (30) days, AND if at my death he is my significant other.” Id. ¶ 9 (emphasis in original).

Ms. Rapaporte and Forrest Karl Gardner (“Mr. Gardner”) met in the 1990s and began dating in 2002. (Countercl. ¶ 6.) In 2005, Mr. Gardner moved into Ms. Rapaporte’s home, where he lived with her until she moved to Grand Oaks Assisted Living Facility (“Grand Oaks”) in 2017. Id. ¶¶ 6, 7. Prior to 2013, Ms. Rapaporte and Mr. Gardner enjoyed together the many pleasantries offered by life. The couple attended concerts and vacationed together, and supported each other emotionally. Id. ¶ 7. In 2013, however, Ms. Rapaporte began showing signs of mental decline and was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Id. ¶ 8. In 2014, Ms. Rapaporte’s doctor diagnosed her with dementia. Id. ¶ 9. In 2015, Ms. Rapaporte’s condition further declined, and Mr. Gardner hired nurse aides to help care for her. Id. ¶¶ 10-11. From 2015 to 2017, Mr. Gardner supervised Ms. Rapaporte’s medical care and assisted Ms. Rapaporte in her daily activities. Id. ¶¶ 10-15.

She was moved to the Washington. D.C. area for care

Mr. Gardner’s last in-person visit with Ms. Rapaporte was in February of 2020. (Am. Pet. ¶ 12.) Thereafter, Mr. Gardner arranged Zoom or FaceTime calls with Ms. Rapaporte, facilitated by Grand Oaks employees. Id. ¶ 13. Mr. Gardner virtually visited Ms. Rapaporte over one hundred times between February of 2020 and her death, despite her fluctuating participation in these calls. (Countercl. ¶¶ 32-33.) In May of 2022, during a video call with Ms. Rapaporte, a hospice worker informed Mr. Gardner that Ms. Rapaporte was “nearing the final phase of her life.” (Am. Pet. ¶ 17.) Subsequently, Mr. Gardner informed the Trustee of Ms. Rapaporte’s condition and reported that he would be unable to visit her in person due to his traveling to Europe for the following three weeks. Id. Approximately eighteen months later, on November 2, 2023, Ms. Rapaporte passed away. Id. ¶ 19.

Mr. Gardner did not learn of Ms. Rapaporte’s passing until approximately six weeks later, when he was told by his hair stylist, who was also Ms. Rapaporte’s hair stylist for a time. Id. Upon Ms. Rapaporte’s death, Mr. Gardner made a demand on the Trustee for his disposition. Id. ¶ 27. The Trustee concluded that Mr. Gardner was not Ms. Rapaporte’s “significant other” at the time of her death and declined to distribute money to Mr. Gardner. Id. ¶ 26. On August 12, 2024, Mr. Gardner’s counsel made a formal demand that the Trustee pay Mr. Gardner the one million dollars ($1,000,000) pursuant to the terms of the Trust. Id. ¶ 27. The Trustee then filed a Request for Instructions with the Court on September 20, 2024, asking the Court to declare that Mr. Gardner was not Ms. Rapaporte’s “significant other” at the time of her death and thus Mr. Gardner is not entitled to receive the contingent disposition.

Gardner survived her by 30 days; hence the need to pigeonhole him as an uncompensated  “dear friend” or millionare “significant other.”

The court

Viewing the Rapaporte Trust agreement as a whole and the context of “significant other” as included in the Rapaporte Trust, the Court determines that the term “significant other” is unambiguous as written in the Rapaporte Trust. To determine intent of the settlor, the Court should look at language “with reference to the whole trust.” Steinhof, 991 A.2d at 1033. The Court must also look at the plain language of the Rapaporte Trust to determine the intent of Ms. Rapaporte. See Fleet National Bank, 944 A.2d at 851. Article III(A)(4) of the Rapaporte Trust refers to Mr. Gardner both as Ms. Rapaporte’s “dear friend” and as Ms. Rapaporte’s “significant other.” (Am. Pet. ¶ 9.) As demonstrated by dictionary definitions, the plain meaning of “significant other” includes close relationships between people, both platonic and romantic. However, the inclusion of both “dear friend” and “significant other” in Article III of the Rapaporte Trust leads the Court to the inescapable conclusion that Ms. Rapaporte intended to define “significant other” as something more than a relationship between “dear friends.” See Andrukiewicz v. Andrukiewicz, 860 A.2d 235, 239 (R.I. 2004) (“When ascertaining the usual and ordinary meaning of contractual language, every word of the contract should be given meaning and effect; an interpretation that reduces certain words to the status of surplusage should be rejected.”). If Ms. Rapaporte intended “significant other” to mean a relationship between close friends, the earlier description of Mr. Gardner as Ms. Rapaporte’s “dear friend” would be superfluous. (See The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 467 (4th ed. 2000) (defining “dear” as “loved and cherished” or “greatly valued,” so a dear friend is a cherished or greatly valued friend)). Therefore, the only reasonable definition of “significant other” within the context of the Rapaporte Trust is an important person with whom one shares a close, spouse-like or similar romantic relationship.

However, despite the fact that the term “significant other” is unambiguous within the context of the Rapaporte Trust, the Court cannot determine, as a matter of law, whether Mr. Gardner was Ms. Rapaporte’s “significant other” at the time of her death on November 2, 2023. This is a question of fact reserved for the factfinder after the pleadings stage. Based on the pleadings alone, it cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt that, under any set of conceivable facts, Mr. Gardner was not Ms. Rapaporte’s significant other at the time of her death on November 2, 2023. Therefore, the Court denies Ms. Senger’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

(Mike Frisch)