Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

Lisa Cole appealed the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County’s decision that precluded her from inheriting the estate of her deceased minor child, M.A.C., who died intestate. M.A.C. tragically died in a car accident in March 2020. At the time, M.A.C. and her brother Mythias were living with their half-sister Samara. Lisa, their natural mother, had not been in contact with her children for some time and had not provided financial support. The insurance company sought to distribute a settlement to M.A.C.'s estate but found no estate had been opened. Attempts to contact Lisa were unsuccessful, leading to the appointment of a personal representative for the estate.The District Court appointed Sunny Yocom as the personal representative after a hearing. The estate petitioned to preclude Lisa from inheriting, citing her refusal to support M.A.C. Lisa opposed the petition and sought to remove Yocom as the personal representative. The court held an evidentiary hearing where Lisa did not appear but was represented by her attorney. Testimonies from family members and school personnel, along with evidence from the Social Security Administration, supported the claim that Lisa had not supported M.A.C. and had misused her survivor benefits.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court’s decision. The court held that § 72-2-124, MCA, precluded Lisa from inheriting because she had refused to support M.A.C. The court found substantial evidence supporting the District Court’s findings, including testimonies and SSA letters. The court also upheld the denial of Lisa’s motion to appear remotely and her challenges to Yocom’s appointment, finding no merit in her arguments. View "In re Estate of M.A.C." on Justia Law

Two brothers, Jim and Charles, manage two LLCs, JHD Properties, LLC, and Berry Hill Properties, LLC, which were established by their father as part of his estate plan. Each brother, along with two other siblings, holds a 25% equity interest in the LLCs through individual trusts. The LLCs own approximately sixty-eight acres of undeveloped land in Wake County, North Carolina. The operating agreements of the LLCs require unanimous agreement between the two managers for any binding action. Since 2018, Jim and Charles have been unable to agree on the use or sale of the property, leading to a managerial deadlock.The plaintiffs, James H.Q. Davis Trust and William R.Q. Davis Trust, filed an action seeking judicial dissolution of the LLCs, arguing that it had become impracticable to conduct the business of the LLCs due to the deadlock. The Business Court granted the motion to intervene by the Charles B.Q. Davis Trust and later denied the Charles Trust’s motion to dismiss. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Business Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the deadlock made it impracticable to conduct the LLCs' business in conformance with the operating agreements.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and affirmed the Business Court’s decision. The Court held that judicial dissolution was appropriate because the managerial deadlock prevented the LLCs from conducting any economically useful activity and there was no mechanism in the operating agreements to break the deadlock. The Court concluded that it was not practicable for the managers to operate the LLCs in accordance with the operating agreements, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment for the plaintiffs. View "Davis Trust v. JHD Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

A man passed away, and his wife made a claim on his estate for half of the money he had removed from their joint bank account before his death. The wife argued that the couple owned the account as joint tenants, and her husband had withdrawn funds exceeding his interest. The district court dismissed her claim, concluding that she was making a claim for conversion sounding in tort and had not met the legal standard.The wife appealed, arguing that the district court applied the wrong legal standard and that a standard from caselaw on joint tenancies should apply. The Iowa Court of Appeals agreed with her, reversed the district court's decision, and remanded the case. The estate sought further review from the Iowa Supreme Court.The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard. The correct standard, as established in Anderson v. Iowa Department of Human Services, involves determining the respective rights of joint tenants based on their agreement and the presumption that each joint tenant is entitled to half of the joint account, which can be rebutted. The court remanded the case for a new trial to allow for proper fact-finding regarding whether the husband removed funds in excess of his interest in the joint account. View "In re Estate of Johnston" on Justia Law

Richard Muller filed a claim against the estate of John Weeder, deceased, under the Nebraska Probate Code. Muller’s claim was based on a modified judgment entered in his favor against Weeder in a separate fence dispute action before Weeder's death. The county court appointed Margene Cork as the personal representative of Weeder’s estate in October 2017. Muller filed a "Statement of Claim" in December 2017 and a "Petition for Allowance of Claim" in September 2023. Cork, as the personal representative, resisted the claim and moved to strike it. The county court held a hearing and allowed Muller’s claim against the estate.The county court for Boyd County granted Muller’s petition and allowed his claim. The Estate appealed the decision, arguing that the county court lacked jurisdiction and that the law-of-the-case doctrine should apply based on a prior appeal in the fence dispute action. The appeal was initially directed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals but was moved to the Nebraska Supreme Court.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the county court had subject matter jurisdiction over Muller’s claim against the estate. The court noted that the county court has exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters relating to decedents’ estates. The court also rejected the Estate’s argument that the law-of-the-case doctrine applied, as the prior decision was made in a different action and not in the current probate case. The Supreme Court affirmed the county court’s judgment allowing Muller’s claim against the estate. View "In re Estate of Weeder" on Justia Law

Michael Jones purchased Series EE federal savings bonds during his marriage to Jeanine Jones, designating her as the pay-on-death beneficiary. Upon their divorce, their divorce settlement agreement (DSA) did not specifically address the savings bonds but included a provision that any marital asset not listed would belong to the party currently in possession. The DSA also required Michael to pay Jeanine $200,000 in installments. After Michael's death, Jeanine redeemed the savings bonds and filed a creditor’s claim against Michael’s Estate for the remaining $100,000 owed under the DSA. The Estate argued that the redemption of the savings bonds satisfied Michael’s financial obligations to Jeanine.The trial court agreed with the Estate, ruling that the savings bonds counted towards Michael’s $200,000 obligation under the DSA and dismissed Jeanine’s claim for reimbursement. Jeanine appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that the federal regulations governing U.S. savings bonds preempted state law, and Jeanine was the sole owner of the bonds at Michael’s death. Therefore, the value of the redeemed bonds should not be credited towards the Estate’s obligations under the DSA.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that preemption was not an issue because N.J.S.A. 3B:3-14 does not conflict with federal regulations governing U.S. savings bonds. The Court found that the DSA did not direct the disposition of the savings bonds, and thus, the bonds should not be credited against Michael’s $200,000 obligation. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s judgment as modified, ruling that the Estate must make the remaining payments to Jeanine as required by the DSA. View "In the Matter of the Estate of Jones" on Justia Law

Stephen Cook, a trustee of two charitable trusts, sued Preston Marshall, both personally and in his capacity as a trustee of a related trust, alleging that Preston's failures caused the charitable trusts to incur debt and tax penalties. The district court denied Preston's motion to dismiss and later granted Cook partial summary judgment. Preston appealed, arguing that the suit should be dismissed because Cook's unnamed co-trustees lacked diversity of citizenship.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana initially ruled in Cook's favor, ordering Preston to authorize payments from the Peroxisome Trust to the Marshall Heritage Foundation and holding that Preston breached his fiduciary duties. Cook later moved to enforce this judgment, claiming Preston continued to refuse to authorize payments and failed to file tax returns. The district court held Preston in contempt but did not remove him as co-trustee. Cook then filed a new suit against Preston, seeking damages and Preston's removal as co-trustee. The district court denied Preston's motion to dismiss, which argued that the claims were barred by res judicata and that necessary parties were not joined.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that complete diversity of citizenship existed because the trusts themselves were not parties, and only the citizenship of Cook and Preston mattered. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding without joining Elaine and Pierce as parties. Additionally, the court determined that res judicata did not bar Cook's claims because the new claims arose from Preston's post-judgment conduct. Finally, the court rejected Preston's arguments regarding comparative fault and failure to mitigate damages, affirming the district court's judgment. View "Cook v. Marshall" on Justia Law

The case involves James B. Church & Associates, P.C. (the Church Firm), which served as legal counsel for Dennis Shogren, the personal representative of the estate of Loren R. Kirk, in a probate action. The estate beneficiaries, including Barbara Sagehorn and the Carter Beneficiaries, alleged that the Church Firm negligently failed to file a protective claim for a refund with the IRS or advise Shogren to do so. This failure purportedly resulted in the estate missing out on a potential $5,000,000 tax refund.The Superior Court of San Bernardino denied the Church Firm's special motion to strike the causes of action under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court found that the firm did not demonstrate that the causes of action arose from its constitutionally protected free speech or petitioning activities. The Church Firm appealed this decision.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court conducted an independent review and agreed with the lower court's ruling. It determined that the alleged acts forming the basis of the petitioners' causes of action—specifically, the Church Firm's failure to file a protective claim for a refund and failure to advise Shogren to file such a claim—were not protected activities under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court emphasized that the anti-SLAPP statute protects statements or writings made before or in connection with an issue under consideration by a judicial body, not failures to act or speak.Therefore, the Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying the anti-SLAPP motion, concluding that the Church Firm did not meet its burden of proving that the causes of action arose from protected conduct. View "Callister v. James B. Church & Associates" on Justia Law

Willie C. Scott signed a promissory note on May 22, 2018, promising to pay $67,000 to Jimmy C. Scott by March 24, 2020. The note detailed amounts borrowed on three separate dates. Willie passed away on November 20, 2019, and Jeanetta C. Scott, as administratrix of his estate, denied the allegations in Jimmy's complaint, asserting that Willie had fulfilled his obligations under the note.Jimmy filed a complaint in the Pike Circuit Court on October 13, 2021, seeking repayment. Jeanetta contested the claim, and the case was consolidated with another related to the administration of Willie's estate. Jimmy moved for summary judgment, supported by affidavits from himself and two witnesses who attested to witnessing Willie sign the note. Jeanetta opposed the motion, providing affidavits from herself and another individual, both asserting that the signature on the note was not Willie's.The Pike Circuit Court initially denied Jimmy's motion for summary judgment but later granted it after a renewed motion and hearing. Jeanetta's subsequent motion to set aside the summary judgment was denied, leading to this appeal.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and found that the circuit court had improperly made credibility assessments in granting summary judgment. The court noted that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the authenticity of Willie's signature on the promissory note, which should be resolved by a jury. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of Jimmy and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Scott v. Scott" on Justia Law

Randall Moe executed a Last Will and Testament in 1989, shortly after ending a relationship with Cynthia Almer. The will included provisions to bequeath all his property to Almer, with a contingent bequest to his daughter, Amanda Miller, if Almer predeceased him. Moe also designated Almer as the guardian for Miller and the personal representative of his estate. Moe passed away in July 2022, and Miller was appointed as the personal representative of his estate. Almer later filed a petition for formal probate and to set aside Miller’s appointment, while Miller sought to reform the will to reflect Moe’s intent to pass his estate to her.The District Court of Williams County held a bench trial and found the will valid and enforceable but concluded it was affected by a mistake of law or fact. The court reformed the will to state that Almer would hold Moe’s property in trust for Miller if she was a minor at the time of his death, otherwise, the property would go to Miller outright. The court also appointed Miller as the personal representative of the estate.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its findings. The Supreme Court concluded that the will was not inconsistent and that the extrinsic evidence considered by the district court did not relate to Moe’s intent at the time he executed the will. The Supreme Court held that the district court misapplied the law by considering post-execution evidence unrelated to Moe’s intent when he executed the will. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment reforming Moe’s will. View "Estate of Moe" on Justia Law

The case involves the administration of the Charles and Patricia Masek Family Trust. Barry Masek, a contingent beneficiary and successor cotrustee, alleged that his siblings, Mark Masek and Dianne Yahiro, also contingent beneficiaries and successor cotrustees, breached the trust. Barry claimed that Mark and Dianne blocked access to their mother, Patricia Masek, the settlor, beneficiary, and trustee, and misused trust assets for their benefit. Patricia later died, and the county court entered a money judgment against Mark and Dianne in favor of Barry and overruled their motion for a new trial.Mark and Dianne appealed the denial of their motion for a new trial. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the county court's decision because it did not state the legal basis for finding Mark and Dianne liable for breach of trust. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine their liability either as de facto trustees or by participating in a breach of trust committed by Patricia.On remand, the county court received additional evidence and determined that Mark and Dianne were liable to the trust by participating in or inducing Patricia to commit breaches of trust while she was in their care. The court issued a judgment against Mark and Dianne for $1,276,858, which included various expenditures from the trust assets. Mark and Dianne appealed again, and Barry cross-appealed.The Nebraska Supreme Court found that competent evidence supported the county court's findings for some, but not all, of the disputed expenditures. The court modified the judgment to $619,000, affirming it in favor of Barry in his capacity as cotrustee of the Charles and Patricia Masek Family Trust. The court also upheld the award of additional attorney fees to Barry. View "In re Masek Family Trust" on Justia Law