Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute among members of the O’Farrell family and related entities regarding farmland, family trusts, and a sale of land to a third-party corporation. Paul O’Farrell, having longstanding involvement with the family land and farming operations, brought a lawsuit naming himself, his estate, and Skyline Cattle Company as plaintiffs. He asserted claims for declaratory relief, rescission of a land sale to Grand Valley Hutterian Brethren, Inc., and damages for alleged torts. Paul argued he was acting not only in his individual capacity but also on behalf of the Estate of Victoria O’Farrell, VOR, Inc., and the Raymond and Victoria O’Farrell Living Trust, based on allegations of undue influence and mismanagement involving his brother Kelly and his father Raymond.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Grant County, South Dakota, previously granted summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing VOR and the Estate as plaintiffs on the grounds that Paul lacked authority to act on their behalf. The court also denied Paul’s request to conduct further discovery under Rule 56(f), his motion to amend the complaint, and his request for a physical and mental examination of Raymond under Rule 35(a). The court additionally awarded attorney fees to certain defendants, finding Paul’s action frivolous.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment, agreeing that Paul lacked authority to sue on behalf of VOR and the Estate and could not seek rescission of the land sale as he was not a party to the contract. The Supreme Court also affirmed the denial of additional discovery. However, it vacated the circuit court’s denial of the motion to amend the complaint (insofar as it prevented joining VOR and Raymond as defendants), the denial of the Rule 35(a) examination, and the award of attorney fees, finding those decisions either premature or not sufficiently supported by the record. View "Estate Of O'Farrell v. O'Farrell" on Justia Law

After the death of Victoria H. Smith, a dispute arose over the administration of her estate. In 1990, Victoria executed a holographic will in the presence of her son, Vernon K. Smith, which left her entire estate to him and disinherited her other children. This will was later challenged by one of her other children, who alleged undue influence by Vernon. The will was invalidated, and the court determined that Victoria died intestate. The estate was then placed under supervised administration, leading to years of contentious litigation and multiple appeals. During the probate proceedings, Vernon, acting pro se, filed various motions, including attempts to remove the personal representative (PR), disqualify the PR’s counsel and the presiding district judge, authorize the farming of estate property, and contest sanctions imposed upon him.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, denied Vernon’s petitions and motions, finding them unsupported by evidence or law, and in some cases, frivolous. The court also imposed sanctions and denied his requests to disqualify the judge and counsel. Vernon was further declared a vexatious litigant in related proceedings. Vernon appealed these rulings to the Idaho Supreme Court, but faced procedural hurdles, including deficiencies in his appellate briefs, multiple defective notices of appeal, and failure to heed prior admonitions regarding briefing standards.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho concluded that Vernon’s appellate briefing did not comply with Idaho Appellate Rule 35(a), as it lacked adequate factual statements, coherent argument, legal authority, and identification of alleged errors. The Court declined to address the merits of his claims, holding that all assignments of error were waived due to briefing defects. The Court therefore affirmed all challenged orders and judgments of the district court and awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal to the PR under Idaho Code section 12-121, finding the appeal to be frivolous and without foundation. View "In the Matter of the Estate of Smith" on Justia Law

A 65-year-old man, referred to as Robert, was found by a food delivery worker lying on the floor in his home and subsequently brought to a hospital. The hospital petitioned for the appointment of a guardian and an order for protective placement, citing Robert’s history of stroke, seizure disorder, anxiety disorder, and aphasia, along with significant confusion, memory loss, and poor judgment. The circuit court entered orders for guardianship and protective placement, determining that an unlocked unit in a nursing/rehabilitation facility or a community-based residential facility was the least restrictive placement consistent with Robert’s needs. Robert was later transferred to an adult family home.Following an annual review, Robert’s guardian reported that he still met the statutory criteria for protective placement and requested an independent evaluation, modification or termination of the placement, appointment of adversary counsel, and a due process hearing. The Racine County Circuit Court appointed counsel and ordered an independent evaluation. At the hearing, the court credited the psychologist’s testimony regarding Robert’s diagnoses and cognitive impairments, finding that the County had proved by clear and convincing evidence that Robert met the criteria for continued protective placement. Robert appealed, contending that the County failed to establish a substantial risk of harm and the permanency of his disability. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order.The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reviewed the case, holding that Robert’s appeal was not moot because his financial liability for care costs under the 2024 order persisted as a collateral consequence. Applying a mixed standard of review, the court upheld the circuit court’s factual findings as not clearly erroneous and, upon de novo review, concluded there was sufficient evidence to support continuation of protective placement. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals. View "Racine County v. R. P. L." on Justia Law

Three siblings became co-beneficiaries of their late mother’s revocable trust, which was to be divided equally among them. The trust included two properties in New Hampshire: a longstanding family home and an adjacent parcel, as well as a nearby home that one sibling, acting as trustee, had purchased for their mother using her funds. After their mother’s death, the trustee resided at the newly acquired property, funded renovations with trust assets, and did not pay rent. Disputes arose among the siblings over how to distribute the real estate, prompting the trustee to file a petition for partition. One sibling counterclaimed, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by the trustee.The 6th Circuit Court–Concord Probate Division reviewed the petition and counterclaims. After a four-day trial, the court awarded the family home and adjacent parcel to the sibling who requested it, and the renovated property to the trustee. The court calculated the value of the renovated property to include both improvements funded by the trust and the period of rent-free occupancy. It found the trustee had breached fiduciary duties by refusing to distribute property and by prioritizing personal interests over the trust’s beneficiaries, ordering him to reimburse the trust for all litigation-related attorney’s fees and costs.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed the probate court’s rulings. It held that the probate court acted within its broad equitable powers in distributing the properties as it did, and that its findings were supported by the record. The Supreme Court further concluded that the probate court had proper subject matter jurisdiction over the counterclaims, since they directly concerned the administration and distribution of trust assets. Finally, the Supreme Court determined that specific challenges to the remedy ordered for breach of fiduciary duty were either waived or not preserved for appellate review. View "Moffat v. Srebro" on Justia Law

Several trusts, including the Lytle Trust and September Trust, own homes in a subdivision governed by a property owners association. After the Lytle Trust secured judgments against the association, it attempted to collect from other property owners by recording abstracts of judgment against their homes. September Trust and other property owners sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, resulting in the court striking the abstracts and enjoining the Lytles from enforcing their judgments against the homes. The Lytles later sought to collect through a receivership, prompting September Trust to seek contempt sanctions. The court found the Lytles violated the injunction and held them in contempt, awarding attorney fees to September Trust for defending the contempt judgment.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County awarded September Trust attorney fees for the contempt proceedings and for defending those awards on appeal. September Trust’s attorneys initially billed at rates of $260-$265 per hour, which the district court used in its first two fee awards. For the third fee award, September Trust requested fees at higher “market” rates, resulting in a substantial markup over the actual fees billed. The district court granted this request, awarding fees calculated at the higher rates.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the appeal. The court held that, under Nevada’s contempt statute (NRS 22.100(3)), attorney fees awarded as compensation for civil contempt must be both reasonable and actually incurred. For parties with private counsel working at an agreed-upon hourly rate, the actual billing arrangement is a significant, though not necessarily controlling, factor in determining the reasonable fee. Because September Trust did not demonstrate its attorneys charged discounted rates for public-spirited or noneconomic reasons, the court found the higher-than-billed rates unjustified. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s third fee award, remanding for recalculation at the rates actually billed, and affirmed the remainder of the order. View "LYTLE VS. SEPTEMBER TRUST, DATED MARCH 23, 1972" on Justia Law

In this case, a trust was established by Frank Garrett, Jr. in South Dakota in 2006, naming his wife as the beneficiary and a South Dakota bank as trustee. The trust applied for and obtained a $10 million life insurance policy on Frank's life, funded by a nonrecourse premium finance loan. After several years, the policy was surrendered to the lender, which then sold the policy in the secondary market. Eventually, Viva Capital Trust acquired the policy, paid the premiums, and received the death benefit after Frank died in 2019. Frank’s estate, administered by his son, challenged the transaction, claiming it was part of a stranger-originated life insurance (STOLI) scheme, violating South Dakota’s insurable interest statute and public policy against wagering on human life.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Minnehaha County, reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment to Viva, finding that the trust was validly established, the insurance policy was properly issued and delivered to the trust, and the policy complied with South Dakota insurable interest requirements. The court also determined that the estate’s counterclaims, challenging the trust’s validity and seeking recovery of death benefits, were barred by the statute of repose, which prohibits such actions more than one year after the settlor’s death. The court awarded litigation costs to Viva.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment to Viva, holding that the estate’s counterclaims regarding the trust’s validity were barred by the statute of repose, and that the insurance policy complied with South Dakota’s insurable interest statutes. The Supreme Court also found no error in denying summary judgment to the estate. However, it reversed in part the award of costs and remanded for further proceedings to ensure only authorized costs were included. View "Viva Capital Trust V. Garrett" on Justia Law

Delores Gibson created the Gibson Family Limited Partnership (GFLP) to distribute farmland to her children, with herself as general partner and her sons, Michael and Greg Gibson, as equal limited partners. Michael initiated multiple lawsuits regarding GFLP, including claims of breach of fiduciary duty and undue influence. In this third action, Michael alleged that Delores was unduly influenced by Greg and Joan Gibson, challenging a land transaction favoring Greg and implicating Robert Ronayne, an attorney involved in the sale. Michael’s central claim was that Delores lacked capacity, with Greg acting as de facto general partner and violating fiduciary duties.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Codington County, reviewed repeated discovery abuses by Michael’s counsel, including improper subpoenas for Delores’s medical records while a motion to quash was pending. The subpoenas failed to comply with the requirements of SDCL 15-6-45 (Rule 45). Michael’s counsel advanced an unsustainable interpretation of Rule 45(b), arguing that unless the court ruled on a motion to quash before the subpoena’s compliance date, he was entitled to the records. The court found that Michael’s counsel disregarded the rules, failed to accept responsibility, and obtained privileged medical records improperly.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed whether the circuit court erred in dismissing the case as a sanction under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with the rules of civil procedure. The Court held that Rule 45(b) requires forestalling compliance with subpoenas until the court has acted on a timely motion to quash, and that Michael’s counsel’s conduct constituted an egregious violation justifying dismissal. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal with prejudice and denial of the motion to reconsider. View "Gibson v. Gibson" on Justia Law

Caroline H. Walsh passed away in January 2012, and her son, John H. Walsh, was appointed executor of her estate. He was responsible for filing the Massachusetts estate tax return and paying the taxes by October 2012. Walsh hired an accountant who died unexpectedly, then worked with two other accountants over several years, but delays persisted due to Walsh’s failure to provide necessary documents and dissatisfaction with property appraisals. Ultimately, the estate tax return was filed nearly seven years late, along with the tax owed and a request for abatement of interest and penalties. No extension to file or pay had ever been requested.The Commissioner of Revenue assessed over $145,000 in interest and $112,327.10 in penalties for late filing and late payment. The estate’s abatement request was denied, and it appealed to the Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board. After a hearing, the Board found that Walsh did not demonstrate reasonable cause for the delays, citing evidence that Walsh had failed to provide requested information and noting the absence of credible justification for the late filing. The Board affirmed the Commissioner’s decision.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the appeal, addressing constitutional and statutory arguments. The Court held that the interest assessed was remedial, not punitive, and thus not a “fine” under the excessive fines clauses of the Eighth Amendment or Article 26. Even assuming the penalties were fines, the Court found they were not grossly disproportional to the offense. The Court also rejected claims that the Board’s structure violated separation of powers or that a jury trial was required. Finally, it held that statutory caps on penalties did not limit the accrual of interest. The Court affirmed the Board’s decision. View "Estate of Walsh v. Commissioner of Revenue" on Justia Law

The dispute centered on farmland in Chouteau County, Montana, inherited by Linda Reynolds and Gerald Cook, who formed the Cook-Reynolds Partnership to lease and operate the land. Gerald and his wife, Karin Cook, became involved in probate proceedings in Idaho, where Karin, as personal representative of the Estate of Ann Lafferty Pfeifer-Murphy, misappropriated funds to benefit herself, Gerald, and their company. Gerald executed promissory notes pledging land in Chouteau County as collateral, but these actions did not reference the Partnership. In Idaho, the Estate and its beneficiaries sought restraining orders against Gerald, Karin, their company Pneumex, Inc., and the Partnership, but only Gerald was served regarding the Partnership.Subsequently, Gerald and Karin entered into a settlement agreement confessing to a judgment exceeding $1 million, with Gerald purporting to bind the Partnership as a debtor. The Idaho court entered judgment against the Partnership and others. The Estate domesticated this judgment in Montana’s Twelfth Judicial District Court and sought to execute it against the Partnership. Linda, the managing partner, challenged the Idaho judgment, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction and that she had no knowledge or authorization of Gerald’s actions on behalf of the Partnership. The District Court held a hearing but ultimately the Partnership’s motion for relief was deemed denied by operation of rule due to the court’s inaction.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the District Court’s denial de novo. It held that the Idaho court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Partnership because Gerald did not have authority to bind the Partnership in the proceedings, and Linda neither authorized nor ratified Gerald’s actions. The Montana Supreme Court also found the Partnership’s motion was made within a reasonable time. The Court reversed the District Court’s denial and vacated the Idaho judgment as to the Partnership, while leaving the judgment intact as to other debtors. View "In re Estate of Pfeifer-Murphy" on Justia Law

A woman was the primary caregiver for her friend, residing in her friend’s condominium for several years. After the friend passed away, ownership of the condo transferred to a living trust, and the caregiver became trustee. She continued living in the condo for a month to recover from illness and remove her belongings. The friend’s nephew contacted local police, claiming the right to evict her, and presented officers with a superseded will listing him as a beneficiary but not mentioning the condo. The officers accompanied the nephew to the condo, told the caregiver she had ten minutes to leave, threatened her with arrest, pushed her out, and took her key.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio reviewed the case after the caregiver sued various parties, alleging Fourth Amendment violations. The court granted summary judgment to some defendants but denied it for the officers, reasoning that the caregiver, as trustee, held a possessory interest in the condo, and the officers’ actions constituted active participation in an eviction without proper legal authority. The court relied on Sixth Circuit precedent to find the seizure unreasonable and the right clearly established.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. The appellate court held that the caregiver had a possessory interest in the condo at the time of the eviction, the officers actively participated in the eviction, and their conduct was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because there was no court order or exigent circumstances justifying the seizure. The court further held that existing precedent clearly established the unlawfulness of the officers’ actions. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment, leaving the officers subject to further proceedings. View "Bender v. Village of Mariemont" on Justia Law