In Will Contest, Court Grants Motion to Recover Costs but Denies Motion to Recover Attorneys’ Fees
In the matter of the last will and testament of Henry Alexander Grooms, C.A 2022-0602-CDW (June 5, 2025)
In 2022, Inesha Ranae Grooms (the “Original Petitioner”) sought to invalidate the Last Will and Testament of Henry Alexander Grooms (“Will”). In 2023, the Original Petitioner died and was substituted by the personal representative of her estate, Lisa Blackston (the “Petitioner). A trial addressing the validity of the Will occurred in February of 2025. After trial, the court ruled against the Petitioner and in favor of Wilson (“Respondent”), finding the Will was valid. Following the trial court’s decision, Respondent filed a motion to recover his attorneys’ fees and costs from Original Petitioner’s share of the estate.
The court first assessed whether Respondent was entitled to recover costs under Court of Chancery Rule 54(d). That rule stipulates costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs. In addressing the motion, the court ruled in favor of the Respondent, stating that Petitioner failed to meet her burden to rebut the rule’s presumption as she was unable to show why an award of costs would be inequitable. Petitioner had been proceeding in forma pauperis and, as such, there was a legitimate concern as to whether Petitioner had the financial means to pay the costs sought. Consequently, the court ordered that the cost be deducted from whatever share of the Henery Alexander Grooms estate that would have flowed to the estate of the Original Petitioner.
The Court then addressed the Respondents’ motion to recover attorneys’ fees. Delaware courts follow the American Rule, which states each party is responsible for their legal fees unless special circumstances exist. Respondent argued for the applicability of two exceptions under this rule: (1) the bad faith exception and (2) the common benefit exception. The court rejected the bad faith argument, reasoning that Petitioner did not actually commence this action so the Petitioner could not have acted in bad faith. Furthermore, the court stated the claim was not baseless merely because the claim failed. The court then rejected the common benefit argument holding that Respondents’ defense caused no additional benefit for Mr. Grooms’s estate.
This blog entry was co-authored by Catherine Kern.
