Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

Regions Bank ("Regions"), as sole trustee of the J.F.B. Lowrey Trust ("the Lowrey Trust"), appealed a circuit court's order that denied Regions' motion to award it attorney fees and costs. Sam G. Lowrey, Jr., and Shelby Lowrey Jones, two of the current beneficiaries of the Lowrey Trust ("the beneficiaries") cross-appealed the trial court's judgment in favor of Regions on their breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim. The beneficiaries claimed that Regions failed to protect and preserve the assets of the Lowrey Trust, which consisted primarily of approximately 20,000 acres of timberland located in Monroe and Conecuh Counties and which have been the subject of much intra-family litigation. The trial court entered a detailed order in favor of Regions, rejecting the beneficiaries' claims of mismanagement of the trust assets and taxing costs against the beneficiaries. Regions filed a bill of costs and a supplemental bill of costs detailing all the expenses incurred in defending the claim, and attaching supporting documentation. The beneficiaries filed a motion to review taxation of costs and a motion to vacate the judgment. The trial court did not rule on the motions, and all post-trial motions were deemed denied by operation of law. Regions timely appealed, and the beneficiaries filed a cross-appeal. Upon review of the record of the five-day bench trial and the considerable documentary evidence, the Supreme Court held that there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's decision on the beneficiaries' breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim. Thus, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Regions on that claim. The Court reversed the trial court's ruling on Regions' motion for attorney fees, and remanded this case back to the trial court for a hearing on Regions' attorney-fee motion to consider the reasonableness of the attorney fee. View "Regions Bank v.Lowrey" on Justia Law

Regions Bank, in its fiduciary capacity as trustee or cotrustee of various trusts, Delores Ancell, and David Puckett filed two permissive appeals, pursuant to Rule 5, Ala. R. App. P., to challenge the Jefferson Circuit Court's orders denying the trustees' motions to dismiss in part Ernest Kramer's and Kenyon R. Kirkland's complaints filed against the trustees. In his complaint, Kramer alleged that the trustees' management of the assets held by the Kramer revocable trust constituted a breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, wantonness, breach of contract, fraud, reckless misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, suppression, violation of the Alabama Securities Act. Finding that the trustees failed to support their argument with relevant legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's orders. View "Regions Bank v. Ernest Kramer " on Justia Law

Pamela Ruttenberg, Harold Ruttenberg's widow, and two of the Ruttenberg's three children, Warren Ruttenberg and Jodi Ruttenberg Benck appealed a final judgment of the probate court that granted the petition of Karl B. Friedman and Daniel H. Markstein III, the coexecutors of Harold's estate, for final settlement of the estate. Ruttenberg's third child, Don-Allen Ruttenberg, who had worked with his father in the family business, Just For Feet, Inc., and who was involved in civil litigation and criminal prosecution surrounding Just For Feet, did not object to the coexecutors' administration and settlement of his father's estate. Upon review of the record of the nine-day trial and the considerable documentary evidence, the Supreme Court held that there was substantial evidence to support the probate court's decision. The Court concluded that the probate court did not exceed its discretion. Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the probate court was affirmed. View "Ruttenberg v. Friedman" on Justia Law

The Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, appointed the Trust Company of Virginia (TCVA) as conservator of property owned by Amy Falcon Morris when that court declared Ms. Morris to be incapacitated in 2008. Ms. Morris died in 2011 in Alabama, and her will was admitted to probate in the Montgomery County Probate Court. The probate court entered orders compelling TCVA to turn over funds in the conservancy estate to the estate opened in the probate court and enjoining TCVA from expending funds without prior approval. TCVA moved to vacate those orders, and the probate court denied the motion. TCVA then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ to direct the probate court to vacate those orders on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to enter those orders. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that in this case a writ of mandamus was the appropriate remedy by which to order a vacatur of the probate court's orders. Furthermore, because TCVA was not properly served with process or provided adequate notice of the proceeding before the probate court, the Supreme Court directed the probate court to vacate the contested orders concerning the assets to which TCVA was conservator. View "In re: Estate of Amy F. Morris" on Justia Law

Three appellate proceedings were consolidated for a single Supreme Court opinion. All three cases appealed the dismissal of their respective cases from the Etowah Circuit Court. The Appellants all sued Donald Stewart individually and as the trustee of the Abernathy Trust and the Abernathy Trust Foundation, in a line of cases arising out of a toxic tort action against Monsanto Company, its parent corporation and a spin-off. The Monsanto Corporations manufactured and disposed of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). A jury found the corporations liable on claims of wantonness, outrage, "suppression of the truth," negligence and public nuisance. After 500 trials on damages, the parties reached a settlement in 2003. $21 million was placed into a trust (the Abernathy Trust) established to pay health and education benefits for those Plaintiffs who qualified for assistance. Each plaintiff signed a retainer agreement and received and cashed his or her settlement check. Plaintiffs in this case challenged the settlement agreement and the award of attorneys fees. Further, they asked for a trust accounting regarding the use of the settlement funds. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of the cases that asked for an accounting of the use of the trust's funds; one case was dismissed as moot; in the third case, the Court granted a writ of mandamus as to all portions of a circuit court order that sought review of the Abernathy trust document as compared to the terms of the settlement agreement. The circuit court was directed to lift any freeze of distributions from the trust. View "Bates v. Stewart" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Wade Tucker, the Wendell H. Cook, Sr. Testamentary Trust, and HealthSouth Corporation appealed a circuit court's partial summary judgment in favor of the Richard M. Scrushy Charitable Foundation. In 2009, the court entered a judgment against the Scrushy Foundation in favor of Plaintiffs for approximately $2.7 billion. As part of their efforts to collect on the judgment, Plaintiffs issued a process of garnishment to the Foundation. The Foundation responded to the garnishment by denying that it had possession or control of any belongings to Mr. Scrushy. Plaintiffs then contested the Foundation's response alleging, among other things, that Mr. Scrushy "dominated and controlled" the Foundation such that it was his alter ego. The Foundation did not respond to Plaintiffs' garnishment contest, but moved for summary judgment a few months later on all of Plaintiffs' claims. The Foundation maintained that Plaintiffs' actions were time barred. The Foundation’s motion did not address Plaintiffs' garnishment contest. Ultimately, the circuit court entered a summary judgment in favor of the Foundation concerning Plaintiffs’ clams brought under the Alabama Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (AUFTA), finding that Plaintiffs' claims under the statute were time-barred. With regard to the garnishment contest, the court entered summary judgment again, holding that Plaintiffs' claims arose from transfers Mr. Scrushy made to the Foundation rather than upon the Judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the circuit court exceeded its discretion by conducting a hearing on the Foundation's request for a summary judgment in Plaintiffs' garnishment contest on less than ten days' notice in violation of the rules of procedure and over Plaintiffs' objections. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Circuit Court's summary judgment "insofar as it considered the Plaintiffs' garnishment contest," and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Tucker v. Richard M. Scrushy Charitable Foundation, Inc " on Justia Law

John McGee (Jack) appealed the grant of summary judgment and a judgment as a matter of law in favor of his brother Willis McGee individually and in his capacity as executor of their mother Elizabeth's estate. Wills appealed the trial court's denial of his request for attorney fees when his brother contested their mother's will. Shortly after Willis presented the will for probate, Jack filed suit to contest the will. He claimed it was not executed as required by law, Mrs. McGee lacked testamentary capacity, and that the will was the product of undue influence. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Willis on all counts of Jack's complaint except the undue-influence count, which was tried to a jury. However, at the close of Jack's case, the trial court entered a judgment as a matter of law (JML) in favor of Willis on that count, "with leave for [Willis] to prove reasonable costs and fees." Upon careful review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed part, and reversed part of the trial court's decision. The Court found that Jack presented no credible evidence to support any ground upon which he challenged his mother's will. Therefore, the Court concluded the trial court erred in refusing to award Willis fees and costs. The Court remanded the case with regard to an issue of whether Jack converted certain items from his mother's estate prior to her death, but in all other respects, affirmed the trial court's decisions. View "McGee v. McGee" on Justia Law

In May 2008, seven-year-old Jordan Alexander Robertson was placed in foster care at the home of Verlin Spurgeon and Carol Spurgeon. In June 2008, Jordan drowned in the Spurgeons' swimming pool. James Brakefield, as administrator of Jordan's estate, sued the Spurgeons, among others, in circuit court alleging that they had negligently and/or wantonly caused Jordan's death. The Spurgeons moved the circuit court for a summary judgment, alleging, among other things, that the claims were barred by the doctrines of parental, State, and State-agent immunity. The circuit court denied the motion. The Spurgeons petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to dismiss the claims against them. Upon review, the Supreme Court granted their petition in part and issued the writ to direct the circuit court to dismiss the negligence claims against the Spurgeons. In all other respects, the Court denied the petition.

Plaintiff Kenneth Jakeman appealed a trial court's dismissal of his claims against Defendants Alderwoods, Inc., Lawrence Group Management Company, LLC, Montgomery Memorial Cemetery, Inc. and Judy Jones. Plaintiff's father purchased a "family plot" in the cemetery in 1967 containing ten burial spaces. Pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement for the family plot, burial was limited to members of the Jakeman family. The cemetery mistakenly conveyed two spaces in the Jakeman family plot to James Jones and his wife, Defendant Judy Jones. Mr. Jones died and was buried in one of the Jakeman spaces. Plaintiff learned of the mistake in 2006, and notified the the cemetery and Mrs. Jones. Mr. Jones was reinterred in another space, however, still within the Jakeman spaces. When Plaintiff's father died in 2008, Mr. Jones was still interred in one of the Jakeman spaces. Despite an offer to exchange burial spaces, and based on a purported refusal to again exhume Mr. Jones, Plaintiff filed suit alleging breach of contract, trespass, negligence, willfulness and/or wantonness, outrage and conversion. Mrs. Jones cross-claimed against Alderwoods, Lawrence and the cemetery based on their alleged error in conveying to her spaces already owned by the Jakemans. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case: "Despite representations in [Plaintiff's] notice of appeal that the underlying matter has been disposed of in its entirety, we hold that, because Judy's cross-claim remains pending below, this appeal is from a nonfinal judgment, and we do not have subject-matter jurisdiction." Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Defendant Jo Ann Hood appealed a trial court's order that granted a motion for a new trial filed by Plaintiff Elizabeth McElroy as personal representative of the estate of Austin Taylor Terry (the estate). The mother of Austin Taylor Terry, who was then 12 months old, admitted him to the Children's Hospital of Alabama. A social worker at the hospital notified the county Department of Human Resources (DHR) that Terry had suffered "suspicious non-accidental injuries." Terry's father, who was divorced from Terry's mother, also contacted DHR after he learned of his son's hospitalization. He spoke with an after-hours on-call DHR service worker learned that Chris Wesson, the mother's boyfriend, had been in the house with Terry. The service worker recommended that Terry not be allowed to return home when he was discharged. A DHR supervisor who had not seen the report, assigned Defendant to investigate Terry's suspected abuse and informed the Hospital that Terry could go home with his mother when he was discharged. Based on her investigation, Defendant determined that it was safe to leave Terry in his mother's care. Subsequently, Terry died from brain injuries caused by Wesson. Terry's parents filed separate wrongful-death actions naming Wesson, Children's Hospital, Hood, and other DHR social workers as defendants. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the estate and awarded $25,000 in damages against Wesson and Hood. The estate filed a motion for a new trial, arguing among other things, that a juror's failure to respond to a voir dire question prevented the estate from using its jury strikes effectively because it would have used one to remove the juror had the juror answered the question. After Hood filed her opposition to the estate's postjudgment motion, the court granted the motion on the ground that the estate was probably prejudiced in its right to a fair and impartial trial as a result of the juror's failure to respond to the voir dire question. Upon review, the Supreme Court could not conclude that "[the juror's] failure to reveal, in response to the particular questions asked, [provided] adequate support for a finding ... so as to warrant retrying this case." The Court reversed the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings.