Evan W. Gray v. Chester L. Gray, III, Trustee

2025 DNH 059

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: May 8, 2025
• Docket: 22-cv-560-LM
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Evan W. Gray

v. Case No. 22-cv-560-SM-AJ Opinion No. 2025 DNH 059 Chester L. Gray, III, Trustee

O R D E R

The court previously stayed this case during the pendency

of Evan Gray’s appeal from the decision issued in this court in

another case between Evan Gray and his brother, Gray v. Gray,

18-cv-522-JL. Doc. no. 93. Both parties, plaintiff Evan W.

Gray (Evan) and defendant Chester L. Gray, III, trustee (Skip),

move for correction of that order. Evan and Skip agree that the

court did not accurately describe the transactions that resulted

in the transfer of funds to Skip’s counsel’s client trust

account in October of 2018. Evan also raises other perceived

inaccuracies and asks for partial reconsideration of the stay

order. For the reasons that follow, Skip’s motion is granted,

and Evan’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.

To clarify, the court made no factual findings in the prior

order. The disputed description was provided as background

only. As a result, the disputed description has no effect on

proceedings or decisions in this case. Nevertheless, to avoid further confusion about the nature

of the October of 2018 transaction, the court will amend the

stay order to reflect the transaction as described by the

parties. Therefore, the sentences in the full paragraph on page

3 of the prior order (doc. no. 93), describing the October of

2018 transfer, are amended to read:

The insurance companies released the policies’ proceeds, $165,584.52, to Skip who was the executor of Chester’s estate. Skip deposited the policies’ proceeds into the estate’s bank account and used the funds to pay expenses of the estate. On October 16, 2018, as trustee of Chester’s 1996 Trust, Skip transferred funds, equaling or approximating the amount of insurance proceeds, from the Trust to his counsel’s client trust account.

Evan asks that other references in the order to the October

of 2018 transfer be amended to state the two-step process of the

transfer and argues that the trusts are also not accurately

described. Because these are not factual findings and have no

effect on the outcome of the stay order or subsequent

proceedings, there is no need for further amendment. To the

extent Evan argues that the court should have addressed his

motion for summary judgment before staying the case pending

appeal, the court is not persuaded. The court is also not

persuaded that the case was improperly stayed.

2 Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Skip’s motion to correct the

prior order (doc. no. 94) is granted to the extent provided in

this order. Evan’s motion to correct and for partial

reconsideration (doc. no. 95) is granted to the extent provided

in this order and is otherwise denied.

SO ORDERED.

______________________________ Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

May 8, 2025

cc: Evan W. Gray, pro se Counsel of Record