Strategic Delay Is Not Excusable:
Rhode Island Supreme Court Fortifies Trial-Court Power to Dismiss Appeals for Intentional Non-Compliance with Transcript Deadlines

1. Introduction

The Rhode Island Supreme Court’s decision in Alison Glassie v. Paul Doucette, No. 2023-372-Appeal (June 25 2025), arises from long-running inter-family trust and estate litigation. After a jury awarded more than $2.8 million (with interest) to Alison Glassie—executrix of her sister Jacquelin’s estate and assignee of Wells Fargo as Trustee of the Jacquelin Caffrey Glassie Trust II—the executor of their father’s estate, Paul Doucette, filed an appeal. Doucette, however, delayed ordering trial transcripts for strategic and financial reasons while he explored mediation. The Superior Court granted Glassie’s motion to dismiss the appeal, finding no “excusable neglect” for the late transcript request. Doucette appealed that dismissal.

The Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Robinson, affirmed. It held that a conscious, cost-saving decision to delay ordering transcripts does not constitute excusable neglect and that dismissal was within the trial justice’s “extreme” discretionary authority. Two justices (Chief Justice Suttell and Justice Goldberg) dissented on mootness grounds, contending that Doucette’s later voluntary payment of the judgment extinguished the controversy.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Issue Decided: Whether the trial justice abused his discretion in dismissing Doucette’s appeal for failure to timely order and pay for trial transcripts as required by R.I. Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure 10(b)(1), 11, and 35(e).
• Holding: No abuse of discretion occurred. “Excusable neglect” requires circumstances beyond the appellant’s control; a deliberate choice to postpone transcript ordering to save money or await settlement fails that standard.
• Outcome: Superior Court order of dismissal affirmed; appeal terminated.
• Dissents: Two justices would have dismissed the appeal as moot because Doucette had fully (and voluntarily) satisfied the judgment during appellate proceedings.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Pelosi v. Pelosi, 50 A.3d 795 (R.I. 2012); Sentas v. Sentas, 911 A.2d 266 (R.I. 2006)
   • Established that dismissal for procedural default is reviewed for abuse of discretion and that “extreme deference” is owed to the trial court.
   • The Court reaffirmed this deferential lens and mapped it onto transcript-ordering defaults.
2. Fields v. S. & M. Foods, 105 R.I. 161 (1969); Vitale v. Elliott, 120 R.I. 328 (1978)
   • Defined “excusable neglect” as neglect caused by circumstances beyond a party’s control; mere oversight, strategy, or financial motives are insufficient. The Court rigidly applied that definition here.
3. Boschetto v. Boschetto, 183 A.3d 536 (R.I. 2018); Valkoun v. Frizzle, 973 A.2d 566 (R.I. 2009); Armstrong v. Polaski, 116 R.I. 661 (1976)
   • Doucette argued these “leniency” cases warranted relief. The Court distinguished them: in each, appellants had either timely ordered partial transcripts or filed within the record-transmission period. By contrast, Doucette knowingly missed both the transcript-order deadline and payment deadline.
4. UAG West Bay AM, LLC v. Cambio, 987 A.2d 873 (R.I. 2010); Boranian v. Richer, 983 A.2d 834 (R.I. 2009)
   • Reiterated that excusable neglect requires forces “out of the party’s control.” Doucette’s voluntary cost-saving delay was the polar opposite.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Rule Framework. Under Rules 10(b)(1) & 35(e) an appellant must order transcripts within 20 days (60 days if the case is in the appellate mediation program) and ensure record transmission within 60 days of notice of appeal (or 60 days after ordering transcripts under Rule 35(e)). Extensions require timely motions under Rule 11(c) or 11(f).

2. Chronology of Non-Compliance. Doucette filed notice of appeal 7 June 2023. Deadlines were therefore:
• Order transcripts by 7 Aug 2023.
• Transmit record by 6 Oct 2023.
He ordered on 21 Aug (14 days late) and paid on 26 Sep (after record transmission deadline). He also failed to move for extension in Superior Court and sent no copy to the Court Administrator.

3. No Excusable Neglect. The trial justice viewed Doucette’s motives—“to conserve funds” while hoping mediation settled—as intentional and “disingenuous,” not neglect beyond control. Given the “vast amount of money already expended,” delaying a relatively small transcript cost was unjustified.

4. Discretion Affirmed. The Supreme Court emphasized that appellate rules “exist to move cases forward.” Conscious flouting undermines orderly process; thus dismissal squarely fit within the trial court’s broad discretionary authority.

5. Mootness Sidestepped. Though two dissenters argued payment of the judgment rendered the appeal moot, the majority declined to reach mootness, deeming further fact-finding necessary and unnecessary to decide the Rule-based issue before it.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

• Tighter Compliance Incentive – Litigants and counsel can no longer expect leniency where delay is a strategic or economic choice. The case signals that courts will treat such deliberate non-compliance as per se inexcusable.
• Broadening Trial-Court Discretion – By reiterating “extreme deference,” the decision entrenches the notion that appellate courts will rarely second-guess a trial justice’s procedural dismissals.
• Mootness Question Reserved – The majority avoided deciding whether voluntary payment during appeal automatically moots a case, leaving that doctrinal question open in Rhode Island.
• Practical Counsel Guidance – Counsel must (1) order transcripts promptly even if mediation is contemplated, (2) timely move for extensions in the trial court, and (3) keep the record moving or risk outright dismissal.

4. Complex Legal Concepts Simplified

Excusable Neglect

A legal “forgiveness” doctrine allowing relief from missed deadlines when the lapse was due to circumstances beyond the party’s or lawyer’s control (e.g., sudden illness, court error). Intentional delay ≠ excusable.

Abuse of Discretion

The appellate standard of review asking whether the trial judge’s decision was irrational, arbitrary, or outside the range of acceptable choices. It is highly deferential: an appellate court will not substitute its judgment simply because it might have ruled differently.

Record Transmission & Transcripts

To appeal, the full trial record—including certified transcripts—must be sent to the Supreme Court. The appellant is responsible for ordering, paying, and shepherding this process within strict timelines.

In terrorem Clause

A “no-contest” clause in a will or trust threatening a beneficiary with forfeiture if they challenge the instrument. Though present in the underlying trust dispute, it was not central to this procedural decision.

Supersedeas Bond / Stay of Execution

Money or security posted to pause enforcement of a judgment during appeal, preventing creditor collection and interest accrual. Doucette failed to post such a bond, later paying the judgment outright.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Glassie v. Doucette establishes a clear, stringent precedent: deliberate, strategic delay in ordering transcripts—no matter how short—does not amount to excusable neglect and will justify dismissal of an appeal. By affirming the broad discretion of trial justices and refusing to reward calculated non-compliance, the Court reinforces the integrity of appellate timetables and promotes efficient case resolution. Counsel are on notice that mediation hopes or cost-saving strategies cannot trump procedural obligations. Although the majority left mootness for another day, the decision nonetheless reshapes litigation risk calculus in Rhode Island: procedural shortcuts carry real, irrevocable consequences—even in high-stakes, multi-million-dollar disputes.