Supreme Court
No. 2025-60-Appeal. (WC 23-312)
Andrea Lynch :
v. :
Jason Gardner and Timothy Gardner as : Joint Executors of the Estate of James Gardner.
ORDER
This case came before the Supreme Court on appeal by the plaintiff, Andrea
Lynch (Lynch), from a judgment of the Superior Court in favor of the defendants,
Jason Gardner (Jason) and Timothy Gardner (Timothy) as Joint Executors of the
Estate of James Gardner (collectively, the co-executors) following an order granting
the co-executors’ motion for summary judgment. 1 This Court issued an order
directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal
should not be summarily decided. Having considered the parties’ written and oral
arguments, we conclude that cause has not been shown and proceed to decide the
appeal at this time. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the judgment of the
Superior Court.
1 We refer to Timothy and Jason by their first names solely for the sake of clarity. No disrespect is intended.
-1- On September 2, 2020, Lynch sustained an injury while visiting a third party
at a property James Gardner (Gardner) owned. Lynch eventually filed suit against
Gardner, and almost three years after the injury, in early August 2023, a constable
served a summons and complaint at Gardner’s last known address. Gardner’s son,
Timothy, accepted the service on his father’s behalf. According to counsel for
Lynch, his office contacted Gardner’s homeowner’s insurance company after a
month had passed without any responsive pleading. Lynch’s counsel then sent the
summons and complaint directly to the insurance company.
Shortly thereafter, counsel for Gardner filed a limited entry of appearance to
obtain an extension of time to respond to Lynch’s complaint. In late October 2023,
Gardner’s counsel notified Lynch’s counsel that Gardner had died in July of 2022.
About a month after receiving this notification, on November 22, 2023, Lynch filed
an amended complaint naming the co-executors of Gardner’s estate, Gardner’s two
sons, Jason and Timothy, as defendants.
The co-executors answered the complaint on December 21, 2023, raising
several affirmative defenses. Almost a year later, in November of 2024, the
co-executors filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the filing of suit
against them fell outside the applicable statute of limitations. The co-executors
argued that the complaint should have been brought in accordance with G.L. 1956
§ 9-1-21 which, in relevant part, requires suit against a deceased party to be brought
-2- “not more than one year after the appointment of the executor or administrator of the
person so dying, and not afterwards, if barred by the provisions of this chapter * * *.”
Furthermore, the co-executors argued that Lynch’s amended complaint did not relate
back to the original complaint because it was filed solely against Gardner, a deceased
person, rendering the original complaint a legal nullity.
Lynch filed an objection, arguing that the original complaint was not a legal
nullity because Gardner was alive at the time of filing 2 and named in the case.
Furthermore, Lynch contended that the amended complaint should relate back to the
original complaint because the proper defendants (the co-executors) had notice of
the suit in August 2023, when Timothy accepted service of the original complaint
on his father’s behalf. Lynch alleged that the co-executors intentionally concealed
Gardner’s death until after the statute of limitations had lapsed.
A hearing on the motion for summary judgment commenced before the
Superior Court on January 21, 2025. Counsel for the co-executors stated that at the
time they became involved in the case they had no knowledge that Gardner was
deceased, but that they promptly informed Lynch’s counsel when they did learn of
2 It is uncontested that Gardner died on July 20, 2022. The original complaint was filed on July 19, 2023, almost a year later. Gardner’s obituary was posted publicly online on August 11, 2022, and the publication of the notice of death to creditors appeared in The Westerly Sun on October 3, 2022 and October 10, 2022. Before this Court, there is no dispute that Gardner had passed when the original complaint was filed.
-3- Gardner’s passing. The co-executors contended that the original complaint, filed in
July 2023, was a legal nullity and that the amended complaint fell outside the
relevant statute of limitations. In response, Lynch argued that the amended
complaint should relate back to the original complaint because at the time of the
original filing, Lynch had no knowledge of Gardner’s passing and Timothy, who
received service meant for his father,3 was ultimately appointed as executor.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial justice held that the original
complaint was a legal nullity, and that, therefore, Lynch’s amended complaint could
not relate back to that initial filing. Moreover, the trial justice explained that because
Gardner was deceased at the time of filing, Lynch’s only recourse would have been
filing a complaint against the co-executors pursuant to § 9-1-21. An order entered
granting summary judgment in favor of the co-executors, from which Lynch filed a
premature but valid notice of appeal. See Article I, Rule 4(a) of the Supreme Court
Rules of Appellate Procedure. Final judgment entered in favor of the co-executors
on January 31, 2025. On appeal, Lynch contends that the trial justice erred in not
allowing the amended complaint to relate back to the original complaint, which she
found to be a legal nullity.
3 At the hearing below, in her papers, and during oral argument, Lynch stated that Timothy “was served” in August 2023. To be clear, in August 2023 the constable gave Timothy the summons and complaint meant for his father. Timothy himself was not served the amended complaint until November 30, 2023. The co-executors assert that Jason, to date, has not been served.
-4- “A decision granting summary judgment is reviewed de novo by this Court.”
Verizon New England Inc. v. Savage, 337 A.3d 689, 693 (R.I. 2025) (quoting Saint
Elizabeth Home v. Gorham, 266 A.3d 112, 113 (R.I. 2022)). “We, like the trial
justice, view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and if
we conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we will affirm the judgment.” Id.
(quoting Saint Elizabeth Home, 266 A.3d at 113-14).
On appeal, Lynch contends that she properly amended her complaint under
Rule 15 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Lynch points this Court to
Rule 15(c), which allows for relation back to the original pleading but requires that
a defendant added to a suit via amendment:
“(1) Has received such notice of the institution of the action that the party would not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits; and
“(2) Knew or should have known that but for a mistake the action would have been brought by or against the plaintiff or defendant to be added.” Super. R. Civ. P. 15(c).
Applying this rule, Lynch argues that her amended complaint properly relates back
to the original complaint because (1) Timothy was served the summons and
complaint within the required time frame; and (2) Timothy should have known, but
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Supreme Court
No. 2025-60-Appeal. (WC 23-312)
Andrea Lynch :
v. :
Jason Gardner and Timothy Gardner as : Joint Executors of the Estate of James Gardner.
ORDER
This case came before the Supreme Court on appeal by the plaintiff, Andrea
Lynch (Lynch), from a judgment of the Superior Court in favor of the defendants,
Jason Gardner (Jason) and Timothy Gardner (Timothy) as Joint Executors of the
Estate of James Gardner (collectively, the co-executors) following an order granting
the co-executors’ motion for summary judgment. 1 This Court issued an order
directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal
should not be summarily decided. Having considered the parties’ written and oral
arguments, we conclude that cause has not been shown and proceed to decide the
appeal at this time. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the judgment of the
Superior Court.
1 We refer to Timothy and Jason by their first names solely for the sake of clarity. No disrespect is intended.
-1- On September 2, 2020, Lynch sustained an injury while visiting a third party
at a property James Gardner (Gardner) owned. Lynch eventually filed suit against
Gardner, and almost three years after the injury, in early August 2023, a constable
served a summons and complaint at Gardner’s last known address. Gardner’s son,
Timothy, accepted the service on his father’s behalf. According to counsel for
Lynch, his office contacted Gardner’s homeowner’s insurance company after a
month had passed without any responsive pleading. Lynch’s counsel then sent the
summons and complaint directly to the insurance company.
Shortly thereafter, counsel for Gardner filed a limited entry of appearance to
obtain an extension of time to respond to Lynch’s complaint. In late October 2023,
Gardner’s counsel notified Lynch’s counsel that Gardner had died in July of 2022.
About a month after receiving this notification, on November 22, 2023, Lynch filed
an amended complaint naming the co-executors of Gardner’s estate, Gardner’s two
sons, Jason and Timothy, as defendants.
The co-executors answered the complaint on December 21, 2023, raising
several affirmative defenses. Almost a year later, in November of 2024, the
co-executors filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the filing of suit
against them fell outside the applicable statute of limitations. The co-executors
argued that the complaint should have been brought in accordance with G.L. 1956
§ 9-1-21 which, in relevant part, requires suit against a deceased party to be brought
-2- “not more than one year after the appointment of the executor or administrator of the
person so dying, and not afterwards, if barred by the provisions of this chapter * * *.”
Furthermore, the co-executors argued that Lynch’s amended complaint did not relate
back to the original complaint because it was filed solely against Gardner, a deceased
person, rendering the original complaint a legal nullity.
Lynch filed an objection, arguing that the original complaint was not a legal
nullity because Gardner was alive at the time of filing 2 and named in the case.
Furthermore, Lynch contended that the amended complaint should relate back to the
original complaint because the proper defendants (the co-executors) had notice of
the suit in August 2023, when Timothy accepted service of the original complaint
on his father’s behalf. Lynch alleged that the co-executors intentionally concealed
Gardner’s death until after the statute of limitations had lapsed.
A hearing on the motion for summary judgment commenced before the
Superior Court on January 21, 2025. Counsel for the co-executors stated that at the
time they became involved in the case they had no knowledge that Gardner was
deceased, but that they promptly informed Lynch’s counsel when they did learn of
2 It is uncontested that Gardner died on July 20, 2022. The original complaint was filed on July 19, 2023, almost a year later. Gardner’s obituary was posted publicly online on August 11, 2022, and the publication of the notice of death to creditors appeared in The Westerly Sun on October 3, 2022 and October 10, 2022. Before this Court, there is no dispute that Gardner had passed when the original complaint was filed.
-3- Gardner’s passing. The co-executors contended that the original complaint, filed in
July 2023, was a legal nullity and that the amended complaint fell outside the
relevant statute of limitations. In response, Lynch argued that the amended
complaint should relate back to the original complaint because at the time of the
original filing, Lynch had no knowledge of Gardner’s passing and Timothy, who
received service meant for his father,3 was ultimately appointed as executor.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial justice held that the original
complaint was a legal nullity, and that, therefore, Lynch’s amended complaint could
not relate back to that initial filing. Moreover, the trial justice explained that because
Gardner was deceased at the time of filing, Lynch’s only recourse would have been
filing a complaint against the co-executors pursuant to § 9-1-21. An order entered
granting summary judgment in favor of the co-executors, from which Lynch filed a
premature but valid notice of appeal. See Article I, Rule 4(a) of the Supreme Court
Rules of Appellate Procedure. Final judgment entered in favor of the co-executors
on January 31, 2025. On appeal, Lynch contends that the trial justice erred in not
allowing the amended complaint to relate back to the original complaint, which she
found to be a legal nullity.
3 At the hearing below, in her papers, and during oral argument, Lynch stated that Timothy “was served” in August 2023. To be clear, in August 2023 the constable gave Timothy the summons and complaint meant for his father. Timothy himself was not served the amended complaint until November 30, 2023. The co-executors assert that Jason, to date, has not been served.
-4- “A decision granting summary judgment is reviewed de novo by this Court.”
Verizon New England Inc. v. Savage, 337 A.3d 689, 693 (R.I. 2025) (quoting Saint
Elizabeth Home v. Gorham, 266 A.3d 112, 113 (R.I. 2022)). “We, like the trial
justice, view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and if
we conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we will affirm the judgment.” Id.
(quoting Saint Elizabeth Home, 266 A.3d at 113-14).
On appeal, Lynch contends that she properly amended her complaint under
Rule 15 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Lynch points this Court to
Rule 15(c), which allows for relation back to the original pleading but requires that
a defendant added to a suit via amendment:
“(1) Has received such notice of the institution of the action that the party would not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits; and
“(2) Knew or should have known that but for a mistake the action would have been brought by or against the plaintiff or defendant to be added.” Super. R. Civ. P. 15(c).
Applying this rule, Lynch argues that her amended complaint properly relates back
to the original complaint because (1) Timothy was served the summons and
complaint within the required time frame; and (2) Timothy should have known, but
for the mistake of Lynch not knowing of Gardner’s passing, that the action would
-5- have been properly brought against the estate. Lynch claims that because the
amended complaint should relate back, the nullity of the original complaint is cured.
In assessing a similar argument under Rule 25 of the Superior Court Rules of
Civil Procedure,4 this Court held that “[i]n cases wherein a party for whom a cause
of action has accrued dies prior to the commencement of suit, § 9-1-21 provides that
‘the action may be commenced * * * at any time not more than one year after the
appointment of the executor or administrator of the person so dying, and not
afterwards.’” Gregory v. DiCenzo, 713 A.2d 772, 774 (R.I. 1998) (quoting § 9-1-21).
4 Rule 25(a) governs the substitution of parties in the instance of death. Specifically, the rule states:
“(1) If a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper parties. The motion for substitution may be made by any party or by the successors or representatives of the deceased party and, together with the notice of hearing, shall be served on the parties as provided by Rule 5 and upon persons not parties in the manner provided in Rule 4 for the service of a summons. If no motion for substitution is made the action shall be subject to dismissal under Rule 41(b).
“(2) In the event of the death of one (1) or more of the plaintiffs or of one (1) or more of the defendants in an action in which the right sought to be enforced survives only to the surviving plaintiffs or only against the surviving defendants, the action does not abate. The death shall be suggested on the record and the action shall proceed in favor of or against the surviving parties.” Super. R. Civ. P. 25(a).
-6- This Court has held that an action filed on behalf of a deceased party is a legal nullity.
Id. at 775. This Court has been clear that Rule 25 does not have “any applicability
in circumstances in which a complaint is brought in the name of a deceased person.
The appropriate procedure to be utilized in that instance is contained within
§ 9-1-21.” Id. at 773.
Lynch attempts to distinguish Gregory on the basis that she did not move to
amend under Rule 25, but rather amended her complaint as a matter of course under
Rule 15. However, like the plaintiff’s reliance on Rule 25 in Gregory, Lynch’s
reliance on Rule 15 is misplaced. Gardner, the only named defendant, was deceased
at the time of filing, therefore there was “no action in existence” to which Lynch’s
amended complaint could relate back. Gregory, 713 A.2d at 775. Because the
original complaint was a legal nullity, Lynch’s only option would have been to file
a new complaint naming the co-executors as defendants within a year of their
appointment pursuant to § 9-1-21. Lynch failed to do so and is thus without
recourse.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed. The papers may
be remanded to the Superior Court.
Entered as an Order of this Court this day of
_________________________ Clerk
-7- STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE Licht Judicial Complex 250 Benefit Street Providence, RI 02903
ORDER COVER SHEET
Andrea Lynch v. Jason Gardner and Timothy Gardner Title of Case as Joint Executors of the Estate of James Gardner. No. 2025-60-Appeal. Case Number (WC 23-312)
Date Order Filed March 23, 2026
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Justices Long, JJ.
Source of Appeal Washington County Superior Court
Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Sarah Taft-Carter
For Plaintiff:
Christopher Krueger-Murphy, Esq. Attorney(s) on Appeal For Defendants:
Lauren D. Wilkins, Esq.
SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2022)