Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

The Dennis P. Hutchinson, Jr. Trust held two residential properties; Appellee Wells Fargo Bank administered the trust. The beneficiary's mother and guardian, Appellant Jean Schultz, learned that insurance premiums on the properties in trust had increased significantly. She discovered that the insurance had not been purchased through local insurance markets, but purchased through the bank. The trust attorney unsuccessfully tried to contact the bank to discuss the increase in premiums, and resorted to suing the bank to force it to disclose documents and other information regarding the trust's administration. The superior court granted the trust approximately half of what it asked for, and declared neither side as the prevailing party, so no one was awarded attorney's fees. The trust appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the superior court misinterpreted the statutory authority belying its decision regarding the fees, and therefore abused its discretion. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed. View "Schultz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

The issue presented to the Supreme Court in this case involved a dispute over the disposition of a deceased Alaska attorney's interest in attorney's fees from his participation, through a joint venture, in the Exxon Valdez oil spill litigation. The attorney's sister, individually and on behalf of their mother's trust, asserted claims to the attorney's fees, and the attorney's estate opposed those claims. The parties settled the dispute by agreeing that the right to attorney's fees was an estate asset, and the settlement was approved by the Alaska superior court in the deceased attorney's probate proceedings. The attorney's fees were ultimately paid to the joint venture. Both the estate and the sister then sought the deceased attorney's interest in the joint venture's attorney's fees. The estate requested that the superior court enjoin the sister's claims as violations of the settlement agreement. Around this time, the joint venture deposited what it calculated as the deceased attorney's share of the joint venture's attorney's fees in a federal interpleader action in California. The superior court ruled that under the settlement agreement, as between the estate, the sister, and the mother's trust, the estate had the right to the deceased attorney's share of the attorney's fees held by the joint venture. The superior court therefore enjoined the sister from pursuing claims to the deceased attorney's share of the joint venture's attorney's fees. The superior court later modified the injunction to allow the sister's participation in the federal interpleader action. The sister appeals, arguing that the superior court exceeded its jurisdiction, issued its judgment without proper procedures, improperly interpreted the settlement agreement, prohibited her from pursuing contract claims against third parties, and entered a vague and ambiguous judgment. She also argues that the superior court's ruling was improperly expanded to allow her participation in the federal interpleader action. Because the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court acted within its jurisdiction, followed adequate procedures, did not prevent the sister from pursuing her individual contract claims against the joint venture, was not vague and ambiguous in its ruling, and did not expand the ruling's substance when modifying it, the Court affirmed the superior court's orders and judgment. View "Dimeff v. Estate of Robert Merle Cowan" on Justia Law

Jason Coday shot and killed Simone Kim with a rifle obtained from Ray Coxe’s gun store. Kim’s Estate brought a wrongful death action against Coxe, alleging that Coxe negligently or illegally provided Coday the rifle. Coxe defended in part by asserting immunity under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The Estate argued against applying the PLCAA and alternatively that it was unconstitutional. The superior court ruled that the PLCAA was constitutional and, interpreting and applying the PLCAA’s immunity provisions to the facts of this case, granted summary judgment dismissing the Estate’s claims against Coxe. The Estate appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s ruling that the PLCAA was constitutional and its interpretation of the PLCAA, but because it was unclear whether certain evidence before the superior court actually was or should have been considered when granting summary judgment dismissing the Estate’s claims, the Court vacated the summary judgment ruling and remanded the case for further consideration. View "Estate of Simone Young Kim v. Coxe" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned a dispute between three daughters regarding the administration of their deceased mother’s estate. The dispute centered around three documents: (1) a will executed in 1987; (2) a revised will the decedent allegedly executed in 2007 or 2008, which contained a clause revoking all prior wills; and (3) an exhibit that was allegedly an accurate (but unsigned) draft of the revised will. After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court found that: (1) the decedent executed a valid will in 1987; (2) the decedent subsequently executed a revised will, but that will was lost; and (3) the revised will had revoked the 1987 will. Because an executed version of the revised will was never located, the superior court concluded it had been destroyed by the decedent, leaving her estate to be administered under Alaska’s statutory scheme for intestate succession. On appeal, one daughter challenged the superior court’s conclusion that the 1987 will was properly revoked. The Supreme Court remanded the case for the superior court to determine whether its finding that the revised will was properly executed is supported by clear and convincing evidence. The Court also remanded for the superior court to determine whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to overcome the presumption that the decedent destroyed her will. View "Dan v. Dan" on Justia Law

Two nieces, acting as co-guardians for their elderly uncle, sued their uncle's former caregiver for misuse and misappropriation of his assets; the caregiver counterclaimed for compensation for services rendered. After a bench trial, the superior court: (1) determined the caregiver had committed fraud and breached fiduciary duties; (2) awarded damages against the caregiver for her misuse and misappropriation of the uncle’s assets; (3) awarded the caregiver some compensation for her services in quantum meruit; and (4) ordered the caregiver's name removed from title to the uncle's house. The caregiver appealed. Because the superior court's findings of fact were well supported, and its application of equitable considerations was well within its discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed its decision. View "Shears v. Myers" on Justia Law

A woman died intestate survived by her husband and three adult children from a previous marriage. The husband had acquired a boat for a fishing charter business during his marriage to the decedent, but the boat and charter business were titled in his name alone. Relying on principles of equitable distribution for divorce cases, the estate's personal representative asked the court to include half the value of the boat and a skiff in the estate's property because marital funds had been used to purchase them. The court denied this request, and the estate's assets were distributed according to statute. The children appealed, contending their mother's estate held an undivided interest in the boats and business. Because the superior court correctly decided that the equitable distribution framework for divorce proceedings did not apply in probate proceedings, the Supreme Court affirmed its decision. View "Pestrikoff v. Hoff" on Justia Law

Richard Villars and Kathleen Villars were married in 1984, divorced in 2002. Richard served in the military for most of the marriage, first in the United States Air Force and later in the Alaska Air National Guard. Prior to filing their dissolution, the parties drafted a settlement agreement dividing their property such that each person was to receive half of the marital estate. The value of Richard’s military retirement benefits was not known at the time of dissolution because he had not yet qualified for benefits. However, Richard and Kathleen agreed to split the marital portion of Richard’s military retirement benefits 50/50 should Richard receive them. Richard began collecting his military retirement benefits in 2009 at the age of 48, twelve years earlier than he and Kathleen had expected at the time of dissolution. Kathleen asserted she was entitled to collect her marital portion of Richard’s military retirement benefits when Richard began collecting them. Richard disagreed, arguing that the parties intended Kathleen to collect only when Richard turned 60 years old. The superior court determined that the settlement agreement was unambiguous and the parties intended to divide equally the marital portion of Richard’s military retirement benefits when he began receiving them, not when he turned 60. The superior court ordered Richard to repay Kathleen 50% of the marital portion of the retirement benefits he had received to date. Richard appealed, arguing that the superior court’s finding on the parties’ intent was erroneous and that the retirement benefits were his separate property until he reached the age of 60. Richard further argued that the superior court impermissibly modified the settlement agreement. Because the findings of the superior court were not clearly erroneous and the superior court did not make an impermissible modification to the settlement agreement, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Villars v. Villars" on Justia Law

Andrew G. Horwath, Sr. died in 1991. His widow, Marjorie Horwath, later moved to Minnesota to live with their daughter, Mary Jaworski. A Minnesota court entered a conservatorship order for Marjorie, appointing Mary "Conservator of the Person" and Michael Horwath (Andrew and Marjorie's son and Mary's brother) "Conservator of the Estate." Marjorie died in 2001, and Michael died in 2007. Michael served for a time as personal representative of Andrew's estate and applied to do so for Marjorie's estate too, but was not formally appointed. Another Horwath daughter, Sue Streets, became the personal representative for the estates of Andrew, Marjorie, and Michael. In November 2008 Mary presented claims against all three estates, alleging that her then-deceased brother Michael had not always made a court-ordered monthly payment to her for their mother's care and that Michael had not reimbursed her for improvements she made to her house while caring for Marjorie. Mary also claimed Michael had improperly dissipated property and mismanaged both parents' estates. Sue issued a disallowance o f these claims in December 2008, asserting that the claims were unfounded and time-barred under both the non-claim statute and the applicable statutes of limitations. Mary petitioned for an extension of time to initiate proceedings on her disallowed claims. Sue opposed the motion, arguing that no extension could be allowed because all of Mary's claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. The superior court denied Mary's extension petition on grounds that her claims were barred by applicable statutes of limitations. Mary unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration, The court did not respond to the motion for reconsideration, and Mary subsequently appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that although Mary's statement of issues on appeal asserted the superior court erred by denying her requested extension because she "exceeded the period under the statute of limitations," thereby causing a "forfeiture" of her claims, the legal arguments in Mary's opening brief did not address this issue. The issue before the superior court was neither the merits of Mary's claims nor the merits of personal representative Sue 's disallowance of Mary's claims for failure to comply with the non-claim statute. The issue before the court was Mary's requested extension of time to contest Sue's disallowance of Mary's claims. The court denied the extension because the applicable statutes of limitations already had run on all of Mary's claims. Having failed to argue the statute of limitations issues in the superior court or in her opening brief to the Supreme Court, Mary was deemed to have waived these issues. The superior court's decision was therefore affirmed. View "Jaworski v. Estates of Horwath" on Justia Law

An eastbound driver (Shawn Mickelsen) attempted to make an illegal left turn into a restaurant's exit driveway. The eastbound driver collided with an oncoming westbound driver, killing the westbound driver. The decedent's estate sued the restaurant for wrongful death, arguing that the restaurant was negligent in creating a dangerous condition on its land and failing to take steps to make the condition safe, for example, by warning eastbound drivers not to use the exit driveway in this manner. The superior court dismissed the complaint, holding that the restaurant had no duty to guard against risks created by the conduct of third parties. Because the complaint, read liberally, stated a cause of action, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the superior court and remanded for further proceedings: "[i]t may yet be proper for the superior court to dismiss Mickelsen's claim on summary judgment, or it may be that the case must go to trial. But Mickelsen's claim cannot be dismissed as a matter of law based on [the restaurant's] owing no duty of care to passing motorists allegedly endangered by the artificial conditions on [its] property." View "Estate of Shawn Martin Mickelsen v. North-Wend Foods, Inc." on Justia Law

Margery Kniffen, as Trustee for the Margery T. Kniffen Family Trust and Darrell Kniffen II, purchased an undeveloped tract in Fairbanks North Star Borough, planning to develop a subdivision. They also purchased a lot in Gold Country Estates, an existing subdivision adjacent to the undeveloped tract. The Kniffens sought a variance allowing them to construct a road across their Gold Country Estates lot to provide access to the planned subdivision. After hearing public testimony, the local Platting Board unanimously voted to deny the variance based on safety concerns. But after a subsequent site visit, the Board reconsidered the variance request and approved it. Gold Country Estates homeowners appealed to the Planning Commission, which upheld the Platting Board’s decision. The homeowners filed suit in superior court, arguing that the Platting Board denied them due process and violated the Open Meetings Act and that the proposed road violated Gold Country Estates’ covenants. The superior court ruled that Gold Country Estates’ covenants did not allow a Gold Country lot to be used as access for the new subdivision. Though the Kniffens’ access proposal was defeated, Gold Country continued to pursue its due process and Open Meetings Act claims against the Borough. The superior court ultimately ruled in favor of the Borough on those claims. The homeowners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the superior court erred by not finding that the Platting Board denied them due process and violated the Open Meetings Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Borough on the homeowners' Open Meetings Act and due process claims, as well as the superior court's order declining to award attorney’s fees. View "Gold Country Estates Preservation Group, Inc. v. Fairbanks North Star Borough" on Justia Law