Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 23, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Andrea Lynch v. Jason Gardner and Timothy Gardner as Joint Executors of the Estate of James Gardner

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

• Citations: None known

• Docket Number: 2025-0060-Appeal.

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (8.6K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

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)