2024 QCCS 464, 2024 QCCS 464

Succession de Cusano 2024 QCCS 464 SUPERIOR COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL No.: 500-14-059827-212 DATE: February 16, 2024 _____________________________________________________________________ Before THE HONOURABLE gregory moore, J.S.C. _____________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE GIOVANNINA CUSANO ANTONIO PIETRAROIA and MARIA CONCETTA PIETRAROIA and NICOLA PIETRAROIA Petitioners / Cross-Defendants v.

VIOLANDA PIETRAROIA Respondent / Cross-Plaintiff and MTRE NATHALIE MORENO FALLA Mise-en-cause _____________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT Cross-Application against Antonio Pietraroia, Maria Concetta Pietraroia, Nicola Pietraroia, and Mtre Nathalie Moreno Falla, notary _____________________________________________________________________ OVERVIEW [ 1 ] Violanda Pietraroia brings a cross-application for $416,357.35 in response to the application brought by Antonio Pietraroia, Maria Concetta Pietraroia, and Nicola Pietraroia to appoint a liquidator to deal with the succession of her mother, Giovannina Cusano, who died without leaving a will.

Violanda [1] includes Mtre Nathalie Moreno Falla, notary, as an impleaded party, although it is clear from the claim against her that she is being sued as a cross-defendant. [ 2 ] The cross-defendants answer with an application for abuse of procedure and an application for a declaration that Violanda is a vexatious litigant. [ 3 ] The Court rendered judgement from the Bench on most of the issues and advised the parties that written reasons would be added to the minutes of the hearing.

Given their length, however, these written reasons are issued separately. [ 4 ] Violanda’s cross-application is dismissed, the defendants’ application for abuse of procedure is granted in part, and their application to declare Violanda a vexatious litigant is dismissed. Violanda will have to reimburse $67,000.00 in lawyers’ fees and disbursements, as well as the other parties’ legal costs. CONTEXT [ 5 ] Giovannina Cusano died on December 29, 2019, without leaving a will. She was the wife of Antonio Pietraroia, and the mother of Maria Concetta, Nicola, and Violanda Pietraroira.

[ 6 ] On May 29, 2020, the family signed a contract for services with Mtre Nathalie Moreno Falla, notary, who they would designate as liquidator of Mrs. Cusano’s succession.

Mtre Moreno’s first task was to draft and have the heirs sign a Declaration of Inheritance and Designation of Liquidator . [2] [ 7 ] As that work was ongoing, Violanda sent Mtre Moreno her mother’s act of death, her own birth certificate, will search certificates from the Chambre des notaires and the Barreau du Québec , [3] as well as an inventory of her mother’s belongings that she prepared and that indicates those items that hold sentimental value for her and that she would like to obtain and to keep. [ 8 ] Violanda communicated her inventory to the other heirs when she sent it to Mtre Moreno.

The other heirs communicated their version of what the inventory should contain. [ 9 ] Mtre Moreno prepared and shared with the heirs a first, second, and third draft of the Declaration of Inheritance and Designation of Liquidator . Violanda insisted that certain items be removed from the draft inventory before she would sign the Declaration of Inheritance and Designation of Liquidator .

In particular, she objected to including fees to draft a power of attorney for Maria Concetta ($450), her mother’s 2019 income taxes ($402), [4] and the fees for the preparation of her mother’s 2019 income tax return ($55). [5] [ 10 ] Maria Concetta testified that the power of attorney would allow her to designate someone to sign the Declaration of Inheritance and Designation of Liquidator on her behalf . She lives in Florida, so could not sign the document in person with the other heirs without travelling to Montreal. [ 11 ] Mtre Moreno testified that Mrs.

Cusano’s income taxes were prepared without her knowledge and before the Declaration of Inheritance and Designation of Liquidator was signed, which is a necessary step for her to assume the role of liquidator and to oversee the filing the succession’s income tax returns. [ 12 ] In February 2021, the other heirs agreed to assume the costs referred to above, but only after Violanda signed the Declaration of Inheritance and Designation of Liquidator . [6] This was two years after Mrs.

Cusano passed away, and almost one year after the heirs signed the contract for services with Mtre Moreno. [ 13 ] Violanda interpreted this proposal as an ultimatum and refused to sign the Declaration of Inheritance and Designation of Liquidator. [7] [ 14 ] In March, the other heirs applied to the Superior Court of Quebec to appoint Mtre Moreno as the liquidator.

Mtre Moreno testified that she could have accepted this mandate from the majority of the heirs but preferred to be appointed by the court so as not to give the impression that she was partial towards the heirs who requested her appointment, or against the heir who no longer supported her appointment. [ 15 ] In April, Violanda brought a cross-application in which she requests that a different notary be appointed as liquidator, that Mtre Moreno provide, within fifteen days, a full accounting of her work since May 29, 2020, and that the other heirs reimburse the legal fees ($2,598.72) that she spent on professionals in Canada, Uruguay, and Italy.

Violanda takes the position that her mother and father are co- owners of a property in Italy that includes a building and 2.2 acres of land. Her father would have inherited a share of the property during his marriage and would have acquired a power of attorney regarding the shares owned by several relatives who live in Uruguay. [8] Her mother would have spent certain sums of money to fix the roof and to maintain the grounds. [ 16 ] On the same day as her cross-application, Violanda filed a complaint with the Chambre des notaires regarding Mtre Moreno’s handling of her mandate.

Mtre Moreno was advised by the syndic not to communicate with Violanda pending the investigation of the complaint against her. The complaint was ultimately dismissed. [9] [ 17 ] In June, Violanda amended her application to add, among other things, a claim for $2,000 in damages against each of Mtre Moreno, her father, sister, and brother ($8,000 in total). [ 18 ] In December, Justice Synnott ordered that the case be split so that the appointment of the liquidator could be decided quickly, followed by Violanda’s claim for damages. [ 19 ] In January 2022, Justice Buchholz applied

article 785 of the Civil Code of Quebec (which provides that a majority of heirs may designate the liquidator) to appoint Mtre Natalie Macri, notary, as liquidator.

Justice Buchholz suspended the court file for six months to give Mtre Macri time to proceed with the liquidation before Violanda’s claim for damages and the other heirs’ claim for abuse of procedure would be addressed. [ 20 ] Within days of Mtre Macri’s appointment, Violanda wrote her a “Without Prejudice” email setting out how she expected Mtre Macri to conduct herself and to proceed with the liquidation. [10] [ 21 ] On February 9, 2023, Justice Synnott held a case management conference regarding Violanda’s claim for damages and the other heirs’ claim for abuse of procedure.

He gave Violanda until February 13 th to amend her claim “ de façon définitive ”. [ 22 ] On February 14 th , Violanda filed an amended cross-application. It contains twenty-one pages of allegations about the mismanagement of her mother’s affairs and her family’s attempts to remove items from the succession, to bring criminal charges against her, and to evict her from her home.

She increased her monetary claim against Mtre Moreno to $5,000, and her claims against her father, sister, and brother, from $2,000 each to $411,357.35 in joint and several liability. [ 23 ] Violanda accuses Mtre Moreno of breaching the May 2020 contract. She also claims $5,000 from her father, sister, and brother, for breach of the same contract leading to their unjust enrichment at the expense of Mrs. Cusano’s succession. [ 24 ] Violanda claims $15,357.35 to recover amounts she spent to counter her family’s concealment of the building and land in Italy.

[ 25 ] She claims another $225,000 against her father, sister, and brother for having left items off of their proposed inventory of Mrs. Cusano’s personal property, including the property in Italy. [ 26 ] She claims $6,000 from her family because they would have sought to include various expenses on the inventory of Mrs. Cusano’s property, including the income tax she owed for 2019, the fees to prepare her taxes, and notary invoices. [ 27 ] She claims $115,000 for malicious criminal prosecution.

Her brother made a police report, and her sister provided a witness statement regarding a fight that broke out at the funeral home in front of Mrs. Cusano’s open casket. Violanda was charged with four counts of assault against her father and Nicola. Justice Guylaine Rivest of the Court of Quebec found her guilty of one count of assaulting her brother and not guilty of the other charges. [ 28 ] Finally, Violanda claims $45,000 against her father, sister, and brother, because her father evicted her from the upstairs apartment of the duplex that he owns and lives in.

She was asked to leave in January 2020, following the events at the funeral home, and again in March 2020. She moved out in September of that year. [ 29 ] On February 14, 2023, Justice Synnott set aside six days for the present trial and ordered Violanda not to amend her cross- application anymore. ANALYSIS [ 30 ] Violanda’s claims are dismissed for several reasons. Mtre Moreno [ 31 ] Violanda’s claim against Mtre Moreno is unfounded. A notary commits a fault when she fails to act as a reasonably competent colleague would in the same circumstances.

When questioned during closing arguments, Violanda could not point to a law, regulation, or standard of practice that Mtre Moreno would have breached. Instead, Violanda explained that in her opinion, Mtre Moreno should have performed her duties under the contract of services as Violanda suggested. That is, she should have objected when she learned that Mrs. Cusano’s 2019 tax declaration had been prepared, including an income split from her father, and when Maria Concetta submitted an inventory that was different from Violanda’s and stated that Violanda approved the amendments.

She should have given Violanda a copy of the income tax return as soon as Violanda asked for it instead of first obtaining the consent of Nicola, who had given it to Mtre Moreno.

Violanda added at trial that Mtre Moreno did not inform her that she had scanned some of the documents that Violanda had submitted to her and did not erase those electronic documents when she returned the originals to Violanda. [ 32 ] A difference of opinion about how a member of a professional Order fulfils her mandate cannot sustain a claim for breach of contract or in professional liability. [ 33 ] Moreover, Violanda wrongly claims that Mtre Moreno failed in her duties as liquidator of Mrs. Cusano’s estate. Mtre Moreno was never designated as the liquidator.

She was involved in this matter following the signature of the contract for services in May 2020 until April 2021 when Violanda sued her and filed a complaint with the Chambre des notaires . A liquidator was not named until January 2022. Violanda’s claims on behalf of the succession [ 34 ] Violanda’s claims to recover amounts that belong to the succession must be dismissed because she does not have standing to sue on behalf of her mother’s estate. She is one of four heirs who do not yet have rights over their mother’s property.

The liquidator can sue on behalf of the succession because she has seisin and simple administration of the succession’s patrimony. [11] Simple administration includes the right to sue and to defend against claims relating to the property of the deceased person. [12] Unjust enrichment [ 35 ] Violanda’s claims that her father, sister, and brother have become unjustly enriched at the expense of the succession are unfounded. She did not prove that they took any property that belonged to their mother or that they were otherwise enriched.

The inventory has not been finalised, no payments have been made to the heirs, and the final account has not been rendered. Mtre Macri confirmed that the items she noted on her inventory have not been removed from Mrs. Cusano’s home.

Expenses regarding the property in Italy [ 36 ] Violanda claims $15,357.35 from Antonio, Maria Concetta, and Nicola as reimbursement for amounts that she would have paid to professionals in Quebec, Italy, and Uruguay to establish that her mother and father own the property in Italy. [13] She argues that her family knows this but refuses to admit it. [ 37 ] However, the liquidator is responsible for determining what the deceased person owned before they died and will incur any reasonable costs, on behalf of the succession, to arrive at her conclusion.

Violanda’s work may eventually contribute to that end but the usefulness of her efforts has not been established. [ 38 ] This claim is dismissed, but without prejudice to Violanda’s right to seek reimbursement from the succession in the future or from the other heirs in proportion to their shares of the succession property. Malicious prosecution

[ 39 ] Violanda’s claim for malicious criminal prosecution must fail because neither her father, sister, nor brother prosecuted her for assault. Nicola reported the incident to the police, and Maria Concetta provided a witness statement. Both testified at the criminal trial. However, the decision to prosecute was made by the public prosecutor, the Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales (DPCP), who also conducted the prosecution. Illegal eviction [ 40 ] Violanda’s claim for illegal eviction is dismissed. She lived for twenty years in the apartment above her father, in a duplex that he owns.

An action in damages requires proof of fault, damages, and a causal link between the two, but Violanda did not prove that she moved due to a fault committed by her father or by her brother. [14] She criticizes her father’s letter of March 1, 2020, saying that it cites false accusations that she assaulted him as a pretext to remove her from her apartment. [15] However, the text of the letter contradicts Violanda’s

interpretation: her father writes that Violanda told him that she decided on her own to transfer to a new residence. [ 41 ] Violanda has not proven any damages, either. Her father initially wanted her to leave the apartment in January 2020, however, his letter demonstrates that he gave her another two months. She did not move until September. [ 42 ] Nicola explained that Violanda was not paying to live in her father’s apartment. She was originally supposed to pay the residential taxes, but eventually only paid half and then not at all. Nicola paid the residential taxes for 2020.

Violanda claims that Nicola breached her lease with her father by paying the residential taxes in her place. She insisted, after the fact, that she should pay them, but she had already been asked to leave the apartment. [ 43 ] Violanda also says that she lived upstairs in exchange for acting as a caregiver to her mother and father.

Nicola explained that Violanda stopped tending to their father and that he checks on him, makes sure he takes his medication, takes out his garbage, etc. [ 44 ] Finally, Violanda says that Nicola put all of her belongings, and some of her mother’s belongings that she wanted to keep, in garbage bags for her to pick up. She claims that this contributed to the distress of moving. Because her brother did not list all of the items that he gave her, she presumes that some of the items she wanted were not included and are kept by her father, her brother, and her sister.

Violanda’s presumption does not prove that any of her mother’s possessions are missing, though. [ 45 ] Violanda acknowledges that some of the monetary damages she claims might be exaggerated because she drafted the 2023 amendments to her cross-application in a hurry to meet the deadline imposed by Justice Synnott. She leaves their final determination to the Court’s discretion.

That said, her testimony did not reveal any specific damages related to her move that cannot be separated from the overall distress she feels following the death of her mother and the fight she feels that she has to wage to ensure that her mother’s succession is an accurate reflection of the property that she accumulated during her lifetime. The underlying justification for the cross-application is not justiciable [ 46 ] During her testimony and representations, Violanda offered insight into why she brought her cross-application.

She explained that her mother was neglected during her lifetime, was ill-treated by Antonio Pietraroia, and that she is standing up for her mother’s property rights. She adds that her parents had a conflictual relationship and that she sided with her mother, while Maria Concetta and Nicola sided with their father. [ 47 ] A lawsuit cannot resolve those deep-seated family relationship issues. The vague and imprecise nature of the Violanda’s legal claims demonstrates that her family issues cannot be made to fit into a legal framework of rights, obligations, and crimes. [ 48 ]

Article 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Court is not required to adjudicate when doing so would not put an end to the controversy. The judgments that Violanda asks the Court to make will not resolve or improve the difficult dynamics within the Petraroia family. Violanda is an unreliable witness [ 49 ] Another reason why the cross-application must be dismissed is that Violanda is not a reliable witness. She believes what she testifies to and what she has written in the numerous emails she produced in evidence. However, her story is not easy to follow and does not add up.

A few examples will suffice. First, she is not accurate in her discussion of her criminal conviction. At paragraph 10 of her amended cross-application, she misquotes the decision against her when she indicates that paragraph 226 acquits her of count 4. Paragraph 226 of Justice Rivest’s judgment finds Violanda guilty of count 3, which was an assault against Nicola.

Neither the text of her cross-application nor her testimony acknowledges the seriousness of her criminal conviction and its impact on the family dynamics that are at the core of this case. [ 50 ] Second, as her mother points out in the transcript of a conversation concerning the property in Italy, Violanda hears one thing and understands another. [16] When it is explained to her that a concern is unfounded, she turns aggressively against the person she is dealing with rather than revising her position.

For instance, she accused Nicola of breaking a picture frame and when Maria Concetta explained that it was already broken, she called her a traitor and added that “liars need to be dealt with.” [17] When Mtre Moreno or Mtre Macri passed on information received from the other heirs, she accused the notaries of working against her, filed disciplinary complaints against them, and sued them or attacked them in her court proceedings. When her father, sister, and brother take the position that neither they nor Mrs.

Cusano owns the property in Italy, she sues them for $225,000, even though she claims that the property is worth 50,000 euros. [18] [ 51 ] Violanda makes serious legal accusations, including “breach of contract”, “unjust enrichment”, “malicious prosecution”, “concealment of assets”, “financial inheritance fraud”, “impersonation”, and “illegal eviction” without an understanding of what these legal charges entail or providing any evidence beyond her opinion of what the defendants might have done.

In addition, her claim about the property in Italy is based on her fears about what her father, sister, and brother could do to acquire ownership of it, not on anything

they have done. Violanda’s opinions and fears are not reliable bases upon which to base any conclusions against Antonio, Maria Concetta, or Nicola. [ 52 ] Moreover, her allegations and claims are too imprecise and inaccurate to be accepted as a valid foundation for an action in damages. Damages are an immediate and direct consequence of a fault [19] but none of the allegations or claims are recited in direct or immediate terms.

It is difficult to understand Violanda’s story or to recast it in legal terms that support the conclusions she seeks. [ 53 ] For all of these reasons, the cross-application is dismissed, with legal costs.

Abuse of procedure [ 54 ] Antonio, Maria Concetta, and Nicola claim that Violanda’s cross-application and the procedural steps that led to trial are an abuse of procedure because they are clearly unfounded, excessive, and unreasonable. [20] They argue that Violanda brought and pursued a case that a reasonable person would know is bound to fail. [21] [ 55 ] They claim their legal fees from Violanda and an order that she not communicate with the liquidator.

Indeed, Mtre Macri will only continue in her role if she can be assured that she will not be subject to what she describes as harassment by Violanda. [ 56 ] Violanda answers that she brings lawsuits and disciplinary complaints to correct mistakes, the consequences of which others should not have to endure. She points to her successful complaint to the Collège des médecins against Mrs. Cusano’s physician who misdiagnosed her and was ordered to pay a $5,000 fine. [ 57 ] It was not reasonable to file or to pursue this cross-application.

Violanda’s doing so is an abuse of procedure. [ 58 ] It must be stressed that Violanda brought a cross-application in damages in response to an application to name a liquidator. Appointing a liquidator should be a straightforward matter that need not always involve an application to the Superior Court.

When it does, reasonable parties limit the debate to the pros and cons of the particular people they wish to nominate. [ 59 ] Instead, Violanda responded with an action in damages for $416,000 when the value of the estate is currently valued at approximately $240,000. [22] If the property in Italy that Violanda evaluates at 50,000 euros [23] and jewellery that might be worth $40,000 [24] are added, the amount she claims is still out of whack with the value of the property that she seeks to protect. [ 60 ] Moreover, Violanda’s cross-application stems from her fear that her father, sister, and brother will remove property from Mrs.

Cusano’s succession for their own benefit and that the liquidators will take or have taken sides with them. However, there is no evidence that anyone has taken steps to deprive the succession of its assets. Even if there were, the liquidation process includes opportunities to address and to resolve such problems. The liquidation of Mrs. Cusano’s succession has not progressed very well in the four years since her death and the three-and-a-half years since Mtre Moreno accepted to act as liquidator.

There has been no distribution from the succession and the final account has not been rendered. [ 61 ] Rather than bring this cross-application, a reasonable person would collaborate with the liquidator and the other heirs, and would allow the liquidation process to advance and to be finalised. [ 62 ] Violanda has hurt herself by her actions and attitude.

She has been found guilty of criminal assault, she has spent $130,000 in legal fees [25] when her 22% share of the succession [26] might be worth approximately $53,000, [27] and she has alienated her father, her sister, and her brother. [ 63 ] Defending the cross-application has hurt her father, her sister, and her brother financially. By spending a considerable amount to defend themselves, Antonio, Maria Concetta and Nicola have effectively burned through a significant portion of what they could expect to receive from the succession. [28] [ 64 ] Violanda must compensate the harm she has caused her family.

They claim their legal fees since April 2021 when Violanda first filed her cross-application. Antonio, Maria Concetta, and Nicola claim $38,299.37, taxes included, in lawyers’ fees and disbursements, as well as $60,000, which is an estimate of their lawyer’s expenses to prepare for and to attend a six-day trial. [ 65 ] Exhibit P-33 includes redacted invoices that total $38,299.37, however, the redactions make it impossible to assess the relevance and the reasonableness of the lawyer’s work.

That said, the amount claimed is reasonable for reviewing and responding to Violanda’s cross-application and exhibits, and for attending the various case management conferences. In view of both the reasonableness of the claim and the inability to verify the work that was performed, the cross-defendants’ legal fees are assessed at $25,000. Violanda must reimburse this amount to compensate the legal fees incurred to answer her cross-application up to the trial. [ 66 ] Violanda must also reimburse the legal fees for the trial.

Maria Concetta and Nicola have not produced an invoice, however, their lawyer clearly prepared for and attended the trial. His 2023 hourly rate appears on his invoices. A common estimate holds that a trial day involves ten hours of billable work, and that one day of preparation is required for each day of trial. The trial of this case lasted four days, plus one hour on the fifth day when judgement was rendered in part. Therefore, Violanda must reimburse Antonio, Maria Concetta, and Nicola an additional $42,000.00, which is (81 hours x $450) x 1.15 (taxes).

The result is rounded up to account for necessary disbursements, such as taxis or parking and photocopying of notes and authorities. [ 67 ] Violanda must reimburse Antonio, Maria Concetta, and Nicola a total of $67,000 in lawyers’ fees. This is higher than the amount she can currently expect to receive as her share of her mother’s succession. This is justified in the circumstances because her cross-application is an abuse of procedure and reimbursing the other heirs’ legal fees is the consequence of her actions.

Otherwise, Antonio, Maria Concetta, and Nicola, who are the victims of the abuse of procedure, would suffer this damage.

[ 68 ] Antonio, Maria Concetta, and Nicola also ask for an injunction that would forbid Violanda from communicating with the liquidator going forward. Her interactions thus far have delayed and frustrated the work of Mtre Moreno and Mtre Macri who have both signaled that they do not want to be involved with this case anymore. [ 69 ] This request will not be granted. Each heir is entitled to make their views known to the liquidator during the liquidation process. Violanda has not always collaborated but taking away her right to do so is too drastic a measure.

In addition, if she is not involved until the succession is finalised, she may contest the final distribution, which could result in the succession being reopened and the liquidation redone, which is not in the parties’ interest. [ 70 ] Moreover, Violanda’s participation in the liquidation process may be necessary to resolve the question of whether the property in Italy should be included in Mrs. Cusano’s succession. [29] Maria Concetta and Nicola have not been completely transparent in this regard, so an opposing point of view may be necessary to get to the truth.

Maria Concetta and Nicola maintain that their father does not own the property because it belongs to their great-grandfather. However, because Antonio is ninety years old, it can reasonably be presumed that his grandfather is deceased and that his property has been passed down to others. In addition, Maria Concetta was asked during cross-examination if her father admitted to being the owner of the property when he filed an application with local authorities in Italy.

He identified himself “ quale proprietario ” of the site, [30] which Violanda translated as “as owner”, but which Maria Concetta insisted means “regarding the property.” A quick internet translation reveals that Violanda is right. [ 71 ] Mtre Macri is not willing to continue as liquidator if she has to deal with Violanda. This is a reasonable decision given the way Violated has treated her. Her very first communication with Mtre Macri was a “without prejudice” email that aggressively sets out how Mtre Macri is to conduct herself.

The tone of her communications went downhill from there and she brought a complaint to the Chambre des notaires . [31] [ 72 ] The parties will have to find a new liquidator who can communicate in Italian with Antonio and who is willing to take on this case, knowing how it has evolved so far and how Violanda has treated the previous liquidators. This is a small pool of candidates.

Vexatious litigant [ 73 ] Mtre Moreno, supported by Antonio, Maria Concetta, and Nicola, applies for an order declaring that Violanda is a vexatious litigant who will not be able to file further court or disciplinary proceedings without the authorisation of the relevant chief justices or syndics. [32] [ 74 ] The undersigned commented on this application when rendering judgement from the Bench, and indicated that more time was required to evaluate it fully. Upon reflection, it would not be fair to grant the application.

First, it was presented for the first time during Mtre Moreno’s closing arguments, which forced Violanda to reply with little advance notice. [ 75 ] Second, Violanda represents herself and is not aware of what the application entails. She asked the Court for an explanation but did not have an opportunity to obtain independent advice. [ 76 ] Third, the application is brought by Mtre Moreno, who has not been involved in the liquidation of Mrs. Cusano’s succession since April 2021. Violanda’s complaint against her has been dismissed by the syndic and by the Review Committee of the Chambre des notaires .

It seems unlikely that she will be the focus of further litigation or complaints by Violanda. [ 77 ] Finally, the only potential appeal or complaint on the horizon regards this judgement and the conduct of the undersigned. The Court does not want to restrict Violanda’s recourses if this might give the impression that it is sheltering itself from review. [ 78 ] Mtre Moreno’s application is dismissed. Because it was raised at the last moment, Violanda did not incur any costs to defend against it and is not awarded legal costs.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 79 ] DISMISSES the Respondent / Cross-Plaintiff Amended Cross Demand Application, dated February 13, 2023 , without prejudice to Violanda Pietraroia’s right to seek reimbursement, either from the succession or from the other heirs in proportion to their shares of the succession property, of the expenses she incurred to establish her mother’s ownership of the property in Italy; [ 80 ] GRANTS in part the Petitoners’ Application to Sanction Abuses of Process and for Related Orders , dated January 29, 2024; [ 81 ] DECLARES that the Respondent / Cross-Plaintiff Amended Cross Demand Application, dated February 13, 2023 , is an abuse of procedure; [ 82 ] ORDERS Violanda Pietraroia to pay $67,000.00, taxes included, to Antonio Pietraroia, Maria Concetta Pietraroia, and Nicola Pietraroia as compensation for the extra-judicial fees and disbursements that they have incurred to defend against the Respondent / Cross-Plaintiff Amended Cross Demand Application, dated February 13, 2023 ; [ 83 ] DISMISSES the application by Mtre Nathalie Moreno Falla, notary, to declare Violanda Pietraroia a vexatious litigant; [ 84 ] THE WHOLE, with legal costs in favour of Antonio Pietraroia, Maria Concetta Pietraroia, Nicola Pietraroia, and Nathalie Moreno Falla.

HONOURABLE GREGORY MOORE, j.S.C.

Me Michael Schacter KAUFMAN AVOCATS S.E.N.C.R.L. Attorney for: Antonio Pietraroia Maria Concetta Pietraroia Nicola Pietraroia Mrs. Violanda Pietraroia Self represented Me Caroline Cassagnabère ROBINSON, SHEPPARD, SHAPIRO S.E.N.C.R.L. Attorney for Me Nathalie Moreno Falla Hearing dates: February 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 2024