ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: ES-11-089; ES-11-088; ES-11-090; ES-11-091; 11-092
DATE: 2014-08-11
B E T W E E N:
DANTE ZERBINATI, MARIO ZERBINATI AND PETER ZERBINATI
Ms. Karen M. Seeley, for the Applicants
Applicants
- and -
THE CHILDREN’S LAWYER RE: JOSEPH VALENTINO (“JOEY”) DOHERTY
Mr. Shane Pearce, for the Respondents
Respondent
- and -
VALENTINO (“TINO”) ZERBINATI, JR.
Unrepresented
Respondent
HEARD Phase 1: Execution of the will: Nov. 12, 13, 14 2013
Phase 2: Undue Influence: Feb.10,11,12,13; Feb 24, 25, 26, 27; May 26,27,28 29: July 21, 22,23
at Kenora, Ontario
Mr. Justice J. deP. Wright
REASONS IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MARIA AQUILINA ZERBINATI, DECEASED AND VALENTINO MARIO ZERBINATI, DECEASED
Role Of The Court
[1] In these proceedings three brothers challenge the validity of a will made by their father in favor of their youngest brother and his son. The role of the court is not to do what it considers to be "fair". In the absence of an express legal reason to the contrary a person in this province is entitled to dispose of his property as he wishes.
Proceedings
[2] This hearing was conducted pursuant to the order of the Hon. Mr. Justice John Fregeau dated 30 May 2012. In that order he directed, inter alia, that various proceedings be consolidated and that there be a trial to determine the following issues:
a) whether the wills of the parties dated August 2, 2008 were properly executed
b) whether the testators had knowledge of and approved the contents of those wills,
c) Whether the Will was made under suspicious circumstances; and
d) whether the wills were procured by undue influence.
[3] This is an action in which the three oldest brothers, Dante, Mario and Peter (“the brothers”) challenge the validity of their father’s will which was dated 02 August 2008. This will was prepared when both parents were in relatively good health, one year before the mother died and two years before the father died. It appointed their youngest brother “Tino” as the executor of their father's estate and divided that estate between Tino and Tino’s son “Joey” who was born on 25 November 2003, equally. Two previous wills had named the eldest son Dante the executor and had left everything to the four boys equally as legatees assuming the mother had predeceased.
[4] If I were to be asked how much money is at stake in this dispute I would be unable to answer. Over approximately 5 weeks of hearing the size of the estate was never mentioned. Like so many family actions what seems to be important are relationships and feelings.
[5] By agreement this hearing proceeded in two phases. Phase 1 dealt with whether there had been due execution and whether the testator knew what he was signing and approved of it. The parties agreed that the father had testamentary capacity and had actually signed the will. The question was whether the formalities of s.4 of The Succession Law Reform Act had been complied with, ie. whether the father had signed in the presence of or acknowledged the signature in the presence of two or more attesting witnesses present at the same time. It was agreed that the burden of proof on this issue fell upon those propounding the will (“Tino” and The Children’s Lawyer) so the latter led off by calling evidence of due execution and actual knowledge and approval. Those challenging had no additional evidence to call and moved to dismiss Tino’s application for probate on the ground that due execution etc. had not been established. I then heard argument on Phase 1. For reasons delivered at that time I accepted that the Succession Law Reform Act had been complied with. The matter was then adjourned to Feb.10 2014 to deal with phase two.
[6] Upon the opening of court on phase 2 I was informed that all evidence propounding the will had been introduced. Phase 2 was the allegation that the will was the result of undue influence exercised by Tino. The parties had previously referred me to the decision of Vout v. Hay, 1995 105 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 876 to the effect that upon proof that the will was duly executed with the requisite formalities it will generally be presumed that the testator knew and approved of the contents, that undue influence was to be treated as an affirmative defence to be raised by those attacking the will and that those individuals bore the legal burden of proof on the issue of undue influence. Accordingly Counsel for the brothers proceeded to lead her evidence on the issue of undue influence.
[7] The evidence on phase 2 and final argument occupied 15 days in addition to the 3 days occupied on phase 1.
[8] Although Vout refers to suspicious circumstances affecting the burden of proof and although the issue of suspicious circumstances was referred to the court by Fregeau, J., that issue was not dealt with before me separately.
[9] Upon the opening of her final submissions, counsel for the brothers submitted that her motion to dismiss after phase 1 had been a motion for non-suit and now, having heard all of the evidence on both phase 1 and phase 2 it was open to me to find that there had not been due execution or that the father had not known what he was signing or approved of it. I advised her that having heard all the evidence I was satisfied that these items had been satisfactorily established and that she should direct her argument to phase 2, ie. undue influence, specifically whether Tino had managed to "poison the wells" and had been responsible for turning his parents against his brothers although I did not use that express language at the time. At that stage my opinion was that this was not a case where it could be said that the testator had been coerced into doing what he did not want to do. This was a case where it was alleged that the testator had been led to willingly do that which he would not have done but for the improper influence of Tino. This was the subject upon which I wanted argument. “A person may well appreciate what he or she is doing but be doing it as a result of coercion or fraud.” (Vout ¶ 29)
Burden Of Proof
[10] The burden of proof of undue influence is on the attackers of the will to prove that the mind of the testator was over borne by the influence exerted by another person such that there was no voluntary approval of the contents of the will. Suspicious circumstances may rebut the presumption of testamentary capacity and knowledge and approval of contents, so as to place the onus on those who advance the will, but the burden of proving undue influence or fraud remains on those who allege it. (The leading case is Vout v. Hay, 1995 105 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 876.)
[11] The burden is the civil burden of the balance of probabilities. (Vout ¶24)
[12] There is no fiduciary presumption of undue influence in the case of wills.(Stephens v. Austin, 2003 BCSC 341, [2003] B.C.J. No. 470, 50 E.T.R. (2d) 255)
Definition of Undue Influence
Coercion
[13] To amount to sufficient undue influence to upset a will the influence exerted on the testator must usually have amounted to coercion, i.e. The testator must have been put in such a condition of mind that if he or she could speak his or her wishes to the last he or she would say, "this is not my wish but I must do it." (Feeney’s Canadian Law Of Wills ¶3.10)
[14] Cullity J., in Scott v. Cousins, [2001] OJ No.19 ¶ 113 quotes Williams and Mortimer, Executors, Administrators and Probate (17th ed., 1993) pg. 184:
Thus undue influence is not bad influence but coercion. Persuasion and advice do not amount to undue influence so long as the free volition of the testator to accept or reject them is not invaded. Appeals to the affections or ties of kindred, to the sentiment of gratitude for past services, or pity for future destitution or the like may fairly be pressed on the testator. The testator may be led but not driven and his will must be the offspring of his own volition, not the record of someone else’s. There is no undue influence unless the testator if he could speak his wishes would say “this is not my wish but I must do it”.
“The testatrix does not have to be threatened or terrorized; effective domination of her will by that of another is sufficient” Crompton v. Williams 1938 66 (ON SC), [1938] O.R. 543 p. 583.
Fraud
[15] But undue influence is also linked with fraud. In my opinion, if the testator would have said “he deliberately led me to believe. . . That was wrong. If I had known the truth I would never have signed that” then the will may be impeached.
Evidence:
[16] Circumstantial Evidence:
“Undue influence is a subtle thing, almost always exercised in secret, and usually provable only by circumstantial evidence” Cullity J. in Scott v. Cousins, [2001] OJ No.19 ¶ 48 citing Atkinson on Wills (2nd edition, 1953) pg. 638
[17] Variation From Previous Wills
“The fact that the will departs radically from the dispositive pattern of previous wills has also been regarded as having some probative force.” Cullity J. in Scott v. Cousins, [2001] OJ No.19 ¶ 114
BACKGROUND
[18] This is a family dispute over the validity of the father’s last will. The validity of the mothers last will is irrelevant except that it may show common intention. Her will left everything to her husband. If that will was invalid then a previous will takes its place. That previous will left everything to her husband as well. The parents immigrated to Canada separately in the 1950s. Valentino Zerbinati and Maria Garofalo married and had four sons, Dante, Mario, Peter, and Valentino Junior (whom I shall call "Tino"). They raised their family at Dryden, Ontario. The father had been conscripted during the Second World War and sent to fight the Russians on the Eastern front. He was captured and imprisoned for several years where life was tenuous at best. He survived. He came to Canada, married, did well. The whole family were hard working and extremely intelligent. The parents had no formal education in English other than some English classes taken by the mother and some night courses in gardening taken by the father. They had little formal education in Italian but they were both self-taught. The father could speak seven languages but struggled when it came to reading. He did not value reading. Not only did the father survive his wartime experiences but he was tough in other ways. Compromise was a concept foreign to him. He had a steel trap mind. Once it was closed it could not be reopened. Almost every witness who described the father used the word “stubborn”. Lillian Della-Mattia, a friend of the family from the days of the parent’s marriage, described the couple as people who had minds of their own. She described the father as “intelligent but bull-headed”. In her opinion no one could manipulate him or take advantage of him. On occasion he could be tyrannical. This trait was mentioned by Dante as well.
[19] Mary Rolls Helie said that the father was not a bully or a tyrant but if someone crossed him that was the end of their relationship. In her opinion the father was a good man but one who considered himself the king of the household. I have a great deal of respect for the evidence of Mrs. Helie but I accept the evidence of others that the mother was the real boss of the house. Mary Rolls Helie was the de facto motherless daughter of the local Anglican clergyman. She was introduced to this Roman Catholic Italian family by Mario at the age of 17. She became the daughter Maria never had. She was in and out of the house, had many meals provided by Maria and drank the postprandial brandy with Valentino Sr. over a number of decades. She taught Maria how to drive an automobile when Maria was 65 years of age. The only regret on the part of the parents was that Mrs. Helie had never married one of their sons. She had a rare glimpse into the life of a family that prized its privacy. She testified with reluctance and tried to be fair to all parties.
[20] The older boys, Dante, Mario and Peter were born early in the marriage at a time when the survival of the family rested upon the ability of the father to be employed. The father was hard on himself and hard on his three oldest sons. This was the way it had been in the old country and this is the way he thought it had to be in the new country if his sons were to prosper. They became as tough and as stubborn as their father.
[21] One by one, as each of the three eldest boys matured the unstoppable force of the father met with the immovable object of the son and the son launched out to make his own way in life. Each appears to have done very well especially considering the poor economic climate of their environment. Dante has been a police officer for many years. He married a business woman and they seem to be raising two sons who exemplify the best qualities of the family, as well as, I gather, some signs that they too can be stubborn. Mario went to Southern Ontario where he seems to be successfully established in a heating and refrigeration business. Peter enrolled in a refrigeration course at George Brown College in Toronto but came home before it was completed. Subsequently he successfully finished a heavy equipment operators course at Confederation College in Thunder Bay. Peter got an apprenticeship and has spent his life in construction after one or two early embarrassing brushes with the law concerning marijuana.
[22] The youngest child, Tino, is cut from a different mold. He was born later than the other boys and was the "baby" in the family. By the time he came along life was easier for his parents and he was treated more gently than his older brothers had been treated. He went off to university, did not graduate in engineering but qualified as an engineering technician. Earlier in life his brothers were proud of him. Where the brothers couldn't wait to move out of the family home Tino was still living in the family home at the time of his marriage at the age of 39.
DID THE TESTATOR KNOW AND APPROVE THE CONTENTS OF THE WILL:
[23] Due execution has been proved, there is a presumption that the testator knew what he was signing and approved it. There is no evidence that he did not. However Dante expressed the opinion that he did not believe that his parents knew that what they were signing were wills. I accept that they did. The parents had all of their mental faculties. They were still active. They had gone through the will process twice before, in 1995 and 1999. The wills were prepared by a family friend, John Robert Remus, after advance planning, using Wills forms provided by the parents. Besides the two witnesses Mr. Remus’ wife was present. She had witnessed the wife’s will. Tino was not present. It is clear from the evidence of those who were there that the documents in question were known to the testators to be wills.
[24] There can be no doubt that the testators not only knew these were wills but approved of their contents when they signed them. Instructions had been given to Remus by the mother in the form of notes he assumed she had written. He is familiar with Tino's handwriting and the note was definitely not in Tino's handwriting. Remus complied with those instructions in completing the will forms. The wills as drafted provided for the grandchild Joey to be an equal beneficiary. To suggest that they did not know that Joey would be a beneficiary or that they did not agree is unacceptable given their close relationship with Joey and the fact that the other grand children would benefit by the transfer of the mother’s investment property to their father in trust. There was some suggestion from Mr. Remus that the mother was unhappy that the father would not transfer his Toronto investment property in trust for grandchildren as she intended to do and there was evidence that they seemed to have thought that by signing their wills before Tino was married they somehow kept their property free from claims by his wife and by the mother of Joey but this does not impeach the wills themselves. Both husband and wife’s wills were “mirror wills” with each other as the primary beneficiary and the same residuary legatees. The mother died first and both her suspect will and her previous will had left everything to her husband in the first instance. This fact is important since, while Mr. Remus testified to reading out the mother’s will I am not sure he testified that he also read out the father’s will. It doesn’t matter. The father was present at the time the mother's will was read. He expected his will to be on the same terms. It was. Remus claims that he read aloud the mother’s will and when he was finished, both father and mother nodded in affirmation then signed, the mother’s first. Following the execution of the wills the father poured brandy and all but the mother (who seldom drank) joined in a celebratory "salute".
[25] Both parents wanted the same will and they both got the same will. As discussed below, both discussed reasons for the absence of any mention of the three oldest boys or the other biological grandchildren. The parents then took custody of the original and a copy of each will. The mother subsequently died which brought their wills back to mind and the father took no steps to change his will.
APPLICANTS CASE
[26] It was agreed that the onus was on the three brothers when trying to impeach the will on the grounds of undue influence.
[27] In support of their contention that the will was the result of undue influence exercised by Tino the brothers argued the following:
• The father always said that the boys would be treated equally. (This was said against a background of Italian custom which ordinarily left everything to the eldest son.)
• In fact this intention was embodied in two previous wills made by the parents.
• The will in question was not made by a lawyer but was prepared on a stationers form notwithstanding that the brothers had a cousin who was a lawyer who had been involved in the making of the previous will.
• The will in question was made on the morning of Tino's wedding, a time when the focus would be on him.
• That Tino is a strong-willed, domineering, manipulative and an interfering person who "poisoned the well’ against the brothers. Various allegations were put forward to support this proposition. For example Dante's wife, Brenda, had taken her mother-in-law to Thunder Bay from Dryden, a drive of more than four hours one way, with her two young children. The allegation was made that afterwards Tino informed his parents that Brenda had said she would never take the mother again. It was claimed that what Brenda had actually said was that she would never take two young children again. It appears that one of the reasons the father hardened his heart against Dante was that it was claimed that Tino informed his father while he was hospitalized that Dante was trying to sell the father’s house under the power of attorney Dante held while the father was incapacitated. Dante says he was simply engaging in contingency planning and suggesting that it made more sense to get rid of a large house and to find a more compatible dwelling unit.
• That Tino interfered when his mother wanted to pre-order her gravestone. Dante was particularly upset because he had gone to the trouble of asking a friend, a retired funeral home director, to speak to his parents about this. Evidence was led that Tino threw a tantrum and said "I want a black stone and they'll do what I want". In the event the stone the mother had ordered was canceled. The brothers point to this as particularly cogent evidence as to the degree of control Tino exercised over his parents.
• That Tino caused hard feelings to the engendered in his parents’ hearts at the time of their 50th wedding anniversary. Dante claimed that he had asked how the parents would like to celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. He says he was told that they did not want any fuss and that although the actual anniversary would fall on a Friday the mother would put on a family dinner on Sunday. He says that relying upon this his wife made plans to take a son to an out of town hockey tournament while he took part in coaching his other son’s hockey game locally. Dante claims that on Wednesday preceding the anniversary it came to his attention that an open reception for the entire community had been planned for the following Saturday at his parents’ home. None of “the brothers” attended to show family solidarity to the community, a fact that upset the parents. Dante puts this down to the maneuvering of Tino.
• That Tino manipulated his parents by the threat of denying them access to his then young child Joey.
[28] I have considered these allegations very seriously. Tino is very intense. He can be very self-centered. I accept that manipulation is a tool of the weak which he probably learned at his mother's knee. The truth of the specific allegations can be questioned. Many of them are based upon hearsay. Other reasons can be given for the conduct alleged if it occurred. For example it can be argued that the allegation that it is suspicious that the will was not prepared by the lawyer nephew is answered by the fact that the parents were disenchanted by the fact that this lawyer had declined to act for Tino in a matrimonial case. They did not understand that the lawyer in question did not practice family law but directed them to a competent solicitor who did. Mr. Remus was a friend of the family who had gone through his own family feuds and had briefly acted as a para-legal. There was evidence that the fact that Dante was trying to sell the house was communicated to the parents not by Tino but by Peter. The alleged comments by Tino that Brenda had said she wouldn’t take the mother again were not proven, the pre-ordered stone was actually cancelled by the agent who ordered it, that even if Tino had deliberately tried to out maneuver the brothers and cut them out of the 50th wedding anniversary there was still time to attend with a little effort if one had the correct priorities. That Mrs. Helie was aware of no attempt by Tino to use Joey as a pawn with his parents.
[29] I reject the allegations that the will came into being as the result of the undue influence of Tino, in which expression I include misleading statements which "poisoned the well" between the brothers and the parents.
[30] In my opinion the will was not the result of Tino's actions but was the result of the actions of each of the three brothers which led, in each case, to an estrangement between the brother and the parents, especially the father, which ultimately led to the making of this will on the eve of Tino's wedding.
[31] We have direct evidence of that estrangement. In each case there was an initial conflict between each brother and the father about the age of 19 which resulted in bad feelings if not a change of residence.
[32] In the case of Peter we have the fact that the parents were very proud people. The father was highly regarded in the mill and had status. The mother was a Thunder Bay Garofalo, an immigrant family that had spawned businessmen and a highly regarded lawyer.
[33] As a young man Peter was convicted of possession of marijuana in Dryden. This hurt the reputation of the family in this small community. In addition to this, Peter seemed not to be concerned with the family's image. Someone, either Peter or Mario, used the father's greenhouse to grow marijuana plants which were then transplanted outside where they were visible to the passing public. Peter made the mistake of inviting his friends over to admire the plants much to the annoyance of his father. Peter then compounded his errs by being apprehended for illegal entry into the United States when he attempted to avoid immigration who would have denied him access. Apparently he was also convicted of possession of a small amount of marijuana in the states. The result was that Peter spent several months in detention in the United States, a fact that was common knowledge in Dryden. The father not only had the expense of legal representation but also the resulting embarrassment. Subsequently Peter got into another altercation with his father. Peter had been in the habit of servicing his father's truck when needed. On one occasion Tino alleged that a tune-up had not been done properly and he proceeded to change the timing sequence. This impacted upon Peter's pride and he informed his father that the father would have to make a choice between Peter and Tino when it came to servicing the father's vehicles. In other words Peter wanted the father to tell Tino to keep his hands off the father's vehicles. The father would not do so. The brothers point to this as an example of the hold Tino had over the father. In my opinion it was simply an example of the fact that the father was fed up with difficulties involving Peter. The estrangement grew. The father told Peter to come and take his belongings from the home. Peter packed things that the father alleged were his. Peter demanded to know where some of his missing belongings were. A silly argument ensued over the return of some scaffold planking that Peter was holding pending return of his belongings by the father. In that altercation Peter informed his father that he would rip his tongue out. I do not know whether this comment was made in English or Italian but I rather suspect the latter. It would be more threatening. Peter is a powerful man and he can convey intimidation although he is generally a decent person who can be very generous. For example, Mrs. Helie found him casting the "malocchio", the evil eye, upon her in church at a funeral. Mr. Remus testified that at the time the will was signed the father got to explaining why the other brothers had been removed. He said that at that time he had not spoken to Peter for six years, that Peter had embarrassed the family, he'd been the cause of heavy legal expenses, he had tried to take the father's belongings and that he had threatened the father.
[34] Mario was a puzzle. The parents felt that he had disowned the family. The family friend, Mr. Anderson, testified that although the father was generally very reticent to talk about his family or to say anything against his children he had mentioned that Mario, who was living in southern Ontario, used to call every weekend but Mario had not spoken to the father for three or four years. The failure of the boy to call his mother bothered the father. Interestingly, the father speculated as to whether it had been something said by Peter (not Tino) that had been the cause of Mario's withdrawal.
[35] Dante was in the same position. At the time the will was executed the father explained that he and Dante had not spoken for three years. The parents had not initially approved of Dante's wife. There was nothing special about this. They didn't approve of any of the boys’ partners. Dante had the insight to observe that stubbornness was endemic in the family. He inherited his share. After his initial estrangement from his father at the age of 19 he attempted to rebuild a decent relationship. He would hunt with his father, a favorite pastime. Unfortunately the father did not understand Dante's position as a policeman. When a hunting colleague of the father became involved with Dante professionally the father could not understand why Dante could not help his friend. Dante rejected his parents attempts to arrange a marriage with an Italian girl although he did accept the trip to Italy, ostensibly to give her English lessons. His parents were not invited to his wedding. The relationship warmed up when Dante's two children were born. At one point the parents hoped that Dante and his wife would purchase their home. Then they expressed the wish that the family would move in with them in the old style. That was not the young couples’ style. (I gather they now live in a lovely lakeside home.) For some reason the relationship with Dante soured. The imperious father got it into his head that Dante's wife was taking things from their home. (There was no suggestion this idea came from Tino.) Dante was a proud man himself. As a pater familias he was sensitive to his own position as the oldest son and the father of children. Things came to a head one Christmas dinner when Dante's family were dining with his parents. The father did something or said something that Dante considered disrespectful of him and uncalled for in front of his children. Apparently the father was constantly "putting him down". Dante gathered up his family and walked out informing the father that he would not get the chance to "disrespect” him again. The mother tried to make peace but the father would never apologize. He could never admit he was wrong. There was no communication between Dante and the father for number of years. One might sympathize with Dante and disagree with the father’s ultimate action but at least one can understand his motivation. When Dante's children were in elementary school they took their lunch at their grandmothers house much to the delight of Maria. When they graduated to high school, distance and a change in their parent's residence, interfered with this schedule. About the same time the estrangement between the two families arose again. The children did not visit their grandmother with any frequency or at all. Much to her distress. The grandparents considered that Dante and his wife were withholding them. Mrs. Mary Rolls Helie testified that the mother had told her that Dante's wife would not allow her children to visit the grandparents. Mrs. Helie said that the grandparents were brokenhearted as a result. In reply Dante pointed out that at certain points in a teenager's life they consider they have better things to do than to visit their grandmother.
[36] Whatever the reason their absence affected the grandparents deeply.
[37] In the result, at the time the will was executed there was a long history of estrangement of “the brothers” from their parents, particularly the father, which had nothing to do with Tino. The fact that much of this estrangement can be traced back to the father is sad but irrelevant. In this case no one is without dirty hands.
[38] When I consider the strong-willed nature of the father and his sensitivity concerning his position as head of the family I find it highly improbable that at the time of the execution of the will he was in any way under the undue influence of Tino whether by direct control or indirect manipulation.
[39] When I consider these same factors I find it highly probable that at the time of the execution of the will its terms were motivated by the parents’ lack of a relationship with “the brothers.”
[40] I am supported in this conclusion by the evidence of their old friend, Lillian Delle-Mattia who testified that although the will was a surprise the parents had told her when they visited her in Thunder Bay that they were going to change their wills because they were angry with the brothers. Mr. Remus testified that at the time the wills were executed that the father explained to him the estrangement of each of the brothers and why they were changing their wills. Mr. Remus then pointed out to him that at one point Remus had disinherited his children for a time. It was also pointed out that the mother was going to transfer her Toronto investment property to Dante in trust for his sons. I understand this was done.
[41] I understand that there are proceedings pending regarding the sale of the house. At that point there may be a conflict between Tino and the Children’s Lawyer but the status of the brothers should be made clear. I have directed that a copy of the endorsement be sent up for distribution immediately even though these reasons will not be released for a week to allow for formatting and proofreading.
ORDER
[42] Judgment to issue:
• Dismissing the claim to invalidate the will of Valentino Zerbinati dated the 02 August 2008, and
• Declaring that Probate may issue regarding that will.
• I may be spoken to regarding costs.
_____”original signed by”
The Hon. Mr. Justice J. deP. Wright
Released: August 11, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: ES-11-089; ES-11-088; ES-11-090; ES-11-091; 11-092
DATE: 2014-08-11
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
DANTE ZERBINATI, MARIO ZERBINATI AND PETER ZERBINATI
Applicants
- and –
JOSEPH VALENTINO (“JOEY”) DOHERTY
Respondent
and –
VALENTINO (“TINO”) ZERBINATI, JR.
Respondent
REASONS IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MARIA AQUILINA ZERBINATI, DECEASED AND VALENTINO MARIO ZERBINATI, DECEASED
J.de.P. Wright, J.
Released: August 11, 2014
/nf (final)