Phillip Moerlein Crannell

The applicant, a separated spouse, sought to set aside the will of the deceased testator on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and to obtain custody of the deceased's cremated remains.

The applicant alleged the testator suffered from Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome and lacked capacity to execute the will dated October 24, 2023.

The court found that the will met all requirements for due execution and that the applicant failed to provide evidence of suspicious circumstances sufficient to rebut the presumption of validity.

The application was dismissed, the will was declared valid, and the disposition of the remains was entrusted to the executor.

The applicant foster parent brought a motion seeking an interim order to return her foster child, who had been removed by the respondent children's aid society.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society failed to provide the statutorily required notice of removal and improperly sought a local director's opinion retroactively.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the Board determined that the child's strong views and wishes, the bond with the applicant, and the need for continuity of care outweighed the mitigated risks of emotional harm.

The Board ordered the child returned to the applicant on an interim basis.

In a historical civil sexual assault action, the parties resolved liability, compensatory damages, special damages, and pre-judgment interest shortly before a summary judgment motion, leaving punitive damages and costs for determination.

Applying the punitive damages framework from Whiten, the court held that punitive damages were not warranted because the defendant had already been punished through a nine-year penitentiary sentence imposed for substantially the same misconduct, and the civil court should not effectively re-try the adequacy of that criminal sentence.

The court found one alleged category of misconduct involving a protected plaintiff outside the criminally addressed timeframe could not be fairly resolved on the paper record and raised a genuine issue requiring a trial.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs on a substantial indemnity basis under the Victims’ Bill of Rights, 1995 in the all-inclusive amount of $145,000.00.