Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

This Rhode Island Supreme Court case revolves around a dispute over an estate and a related legal fee. The plaintiff, Ambrose C. Mendes, Jr., challenged an order and judgment of the Superior Court that approved two Providence Probate Court accountings and closed the estate of his late father, Ambrose Mendes, Sr. Additionally, he contested an order that granted opposing counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees. Mr. Mendes argued that the trial justice denied him his right to a jury trial.The court noted that Mr. Mendes and his siblings had been in litigation for over a decade over the administration of their father's estate and their dispute with the defendant, Kirshenbaum & Kirshenbaum Attorneys at Law, Inc. During a court hearing, Mr. Mendes agreed on record to a settlement, but later changed his mind and refused to sign the written agreement memorializing the settlement. He then filed a notice of appeal.The court held that Mr. Mendes's on-record agreement in court demonstrated his intention to be bound by the terms of the settlement. As a result, he had waived his ability to contest the acceptance of the accountings, the closing of the estate, or the decision to deny him a jury trial.However, the court vacated the trial justice’s order awarding attorney’s fees to the defendant. The court decided that the trial justice lacked jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees because, once an appeal had been docketed in this court, the lower court was divested of jurisdiction and lacked the authority to act in the case. Thus, the court affirmed the Superior Court’s order and judgment approving the accountings and closing the estate, but vacated the decision awarding the defendant attorney’s fees. View "Mendes v. Kirshenbaum & Kirshenbaum" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the trial court's decision to reform an irrevocable trust to reflect the original intent of the settlor. The settlor, Elton G. Beebe Sr., created a trust in 1992 with the aim of providing lifetime benefits to 16 named individuals. However, he claimed that a scrivener’s error in the trust document led to a misunderstanding about the distribution of the trust's assets upon the death of the last named beneficiary. The trust document stated that the assets would be distributed to the descendants of all 16 beneficiaries, but Beebe claimed that his intention was for the assets to be distributed to his own lineal descendants.The trial court found that the settlor provided clear and convincing evidence of his original intent and the mistake in the trust document. It reformed the termination provision of the trust to reflect the settlor's intent. The decision was appealed by several parties who were not in agreement with the reformation.The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision, finding that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the termination provision in the trust was a mistake of expression that did not reflect Beebe's intent at the time the trust was created. The court did not find any abuse of discretion in the trial court's finding. View "In the Matter of the Elton G. Beebe, Sr. Irrevocable Family Mortgage Trust v. Family Management, Inc." on Justia Law

In the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, the court was asked to decide whether the attempted conveyances of interests in a testamentary trust that included a spendthrift provision were void ab initio (void from the outset) or merely voidable. The trust was established by Irene Nutter Haymond for the benefit of her grandchildren. It was co-managed by her son, Christopher Haymond, who convinced the beneficiaries to transfer their interests in the trust property to him in violation of the spendthrift provision. This provision prevented the beneficiaries from alienating or encumbering their interests in the trust until it terminated. The court held that a trust beneficiary's attempt to transfer his or her interest in violation of a valid spendthrift provision is void ab initio. The court reasoned that a settlor's intent in including a spendthrift provision and placing those restraints on the property must control and be given effect. Therefore, an instrument purporting to convey that interest in violation of a valid spendthrift provision is void from the outset. View "Haymond v. Haymond" on Justia Law

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the civil division's decision to invalidate a portion of Donald Crofut's will that granted Sean Hammond an option to purchase Crofut's residence for $40,000. The court found that Crofut and Hammond had a relationship of trust and confidence. Hammond lived with Crofut, cared for him during his illness, and had access to Crofut's debit card. Evidence showed that Hammond made unauthorized purchases with Crofut's debit card and withdrew money from Crofut's bank account without permission. The court found that, had Crofut known about the theft, he would not have included the option provision in his will. As such, the option bequeathed to Hammond was found to be the result of undue influence. The court also held that partial voidance of a will is an acceptable remedy when undue influence is found, as it best preserves the testator’s intent and effectuates their desires. Here, the option provision was a small part of a much larger will, and the evidence of undue influence was unrelated to the other bequests and individuals. Therefore, invalidating the entire will would have contravened Crofut's intent. View "In re Estate of Crofut" on Justia Law

In this case, Jonathan Garaas and David Garaas, serving as co-trustees of multiple family trusts, appealed a dismissal of their complaint against Petro-Hunt, L.L.C., an oil company operating on land in which the trusts own mineral interests. The trusts claimed that Petro-Hunt had decreased their royalty interest without proper basis and sought both a declaratory judgment affirming their higher royalty interest and damages for underpayment. The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, stating that the trusts had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before the North Dakota Industrial Commission.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that the trusts needed to exhaust their administrative remedies before bringing their claims to the court. The court reasoned that the issues raised by the trusts involved factual matters related to the correlative rights of landowners within the drilling unit, which fall within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission. The court held that the commission should first consider these issues, make findings of fact, and develop a complete record before the case proceeds to the district court. It further noted that, after exhausting their administrative remedies, the trusts could then bring an appropriate action for declaratory relief or damages in district court. View "Garaas v. Petro-Hunt" on Justia Law

In a wrongful death action against an assisted-living facility, the Supreme Court of Tennessee held that the claims were subject to arbitration as per an agreement signed by the deceased's attorney-in-fact. The court clarified two key points. First, signing an optional arbitration agreement is not a "health care decision" under the Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care Act. Second, the attorney-in-fact had the authority to sign the arbitration agreement on the deceased's behalf, considering the durable power of attorney gave her the power to act for him in "all claims and litigation matters". The court further ruled that the deceased's son, who brought the wrongful death action, was bound by the arbitration agreement because his claims were derivative of his father's. Consequently, the court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court.In the case, Granville Williams, Jr. died while residing at an assisted-living facility run by Smyrna Residential, LLC. His son James Williams filed a wrongful death action against the facility. The decedent's daughter, acting as his attorney-in-fact under a power of attorney, had signed an arbitration agreement with the facility at the time of his admission. The arbitration agreement was not a condition of admission to the facility. The key issues were whether the attorney-in-fact had the authority to sign the arbitration agreement and whether the son, who was not a party to the agreement, was nevertheless bound by it. View "Williams v. Smyrna Residential, LLC" on Justia Law

This case focuses on a Florida statute that concerns the inheritance rights of a child conceived from the eggs or sperm of a deceased person. Kathleen Steele, the appellant, had a child named P.S.S conceived through in vitro fertilization using her deceased husband's sperm. She sought survivor benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA), claiming P.S.S. was entitled to such benefits as a child of Mr. Steele. The SSA denied the application, and the decision was upheld by an administrative law judge and a federal district court.On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Florida. The court only addressed the first question, which asked whether P.S.S was "provided for" in the decedent's will within the meaning of Florida Statute § 742.17(4).The Supreme Court of Florida ruled that "provided for" in this context means that the will must give something to the child as contemplated by the decedent when the will was made. The court found that Mr. Steele's will did not contemplate the possibility of children being conceived after his death nor did it provide any inheritance rights to such children. Therefore, the court concluded that P.S.S was not "provided for" in Mr. Steele's will within the meaning of the statute and was not eligible for a claim against the decedent's estate. The court did not address the second question certified by the Eleventh Circuit as the answer to the first question was determinative of the case. View "Steele v. Commissioner of Social Security" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Arkansas was hearing an appeal regarding the distribution of the estate of John Haverstick Sr., specifically an annuity that he had purchased. The appellants were John Sr.'s sons, John Jr. and Jerry, and the appellee was John Sr.'s surviving widow, Frances. The sons argued that the lower court erred in finding that John Sr.’s will had changed the beneficiaries of the annuity, citing three reasons: (1) the will did not claim to change the beneficiaries; (2) even if the will claimed to change the beneficiaries, it was ineffective because it did not comply with the contractual procedure for making changes; and (3) under Act 925 of 2021, attempts to change annuity beneficiaries by will are ineffective.The Supreme Court of Arkansas ultimately decided to affirm the lower court's ruling. The court held that John Sr.’s will did change the annuity's beneficiaries because it sufficiently identified the annuity policy and expressed an intent to change how the proceeds would be distributed upon his death. The court rejected the argument that the will was ineffective because it did not comply with the contractual procedure for making changes, noting that the policy of allowing a testator to modify a beneficiary designation to life insurance policies also applies to the will in this case. Finally, the court found that Act 925 of 2021 does not apply retroactively, and thus it did not render the changes in the will ineffective. View "Haverstick v. Haverstick" on Justia Law

In Minnesota, a district court removed Brian Lipschultz as a trustee from the Otto Bremer Trust. This decision was based on his violation of Minnesota Statutes section 501C.0706(b)(1), which allows for the removal of a trustee for a “serious breach of trust.” The breaches included Lipschultz's misuse of trust resources for personal purposes, offensive behavior during a stock dispute, manipulation of a grantee, and failure to disclose his successor. Lipschultz appealed this decision, arguing that the district court and court of appeals applied an incorrect legal standard for removal and that they abused their discretion in removing him under section 501C.0706(b)(1). However, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, stating that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion when it determined that Lipschultz committed “a serious breach of trust” under section 501C.0706(b)(1). The court concluded that Lipschultz breached the duty of loyalty and the duty of information, demonstrating a pattern of placing his personal priorities over the duties he owed to the Trust. View "In the Matter of the Otto Bremer Trust" on Justia Law

In Iowa, a ten-year-old boy was treated at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC) for a dislodged feeding tube and died the next day. The boy's mother filed administrative tort claims on behalf of the child's estate prior to being appointed as the estate's administrator. The child's parents also individually claimed loss of consortium. The claims were dismissed by the district court, which ruled that the mother lacked authority to file a claim on behalf of the estate prior to her official appointment, and that the parents had not properly filed individual administrative tort claims.The Supreme Court of Iowa held that the district court was correct to dismiss the parents' individual claims as no individual administrative tort claims were filed. However, the court determined the district court had erred in dismissing the estate's claims, arguing that the mother's administrative tort claims were valid despite her not being appointed as the estate's administrator at the time of filing. The court explained that a representative may act to protect an estate's interests before being officially appointed and can ratify pre-appointment acts, granting them the same effect as acts that would occur after appointment. The court also confirmed that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to permit the plaintiffs' new evidence. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Anderson v. State of Iowa" on Justia Law