Master in Chancery Cites Discretionary Lenience in Granting Pro Se Litigant Leave to Amend

IMO Kalil Trust and Estate C.A. No. 11047-MZ (January 23, 2017)

Donald J. Kalil (“Petitioner”) claims that James Kalil, Sr. (the “Decedent”) accidentally failed to retitle an account in the name of a 1989 trust, even though Decedent intended to distribute the funds in that account according to a 1997 trust and Decedent’s 1997 will.

The petition seeks to reform the 1997 trust to control the disputed account and also seeks to dissolve a partnership holding real estate in favor of a limited partnership to which Petitioner contends the real estate should have been reassigned long ago.  Acting pro se, James Kalil, Jr. (the “Respondent”) submitted an answer that alleged undue influence, disputed Petitioner’s assertions, and asked the Court to “uphold the 1989 trust.”

Respondent thereafter sought to amend his answer. But Petitioner argued that request was untimely.

In deciding the issue, Master Zurn cited the Court’s traditional lenience for pro se litigants and granted Respondent leave to amend his answer.