Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

Before she died, Decedent executed a Will. The Will had an “Exhibit A” attached to it at the time the Will was submitted to probate. The exhibit set forth bequests made by Decedent to various relatives. Both Exhibit A and the Will contained handwritten notices. After a dispute arose between the co-executors of the Will and some of the beneficiaries of the Will concerning the administration of Decedent’s estate, the co-executors filed a petition for declaratory relief. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the beneficiaries, concluding (1) Exhibit A to the Will was properly incorporated by reference into the Will; (2) the handwritten notations found on the Will and Exhibit A that were made after the date the Will was executed were “surplusage” and could be disregarded; and (3) Decedent intended Exhibit A to be incorporated into the Will. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was insufficient evidence to allow Exhibit A to be incorporated by reference into the Will.View "Cyfers v. Cyfers" on Justia Law

After Tonia Begley died, Robert Bartee and Wiley Begley qualified as co-administrators of Begley’s estate. Wiley Begley subsequently died. Thereafter, Bartee filed a wrongful death lawsuit against an emergency department physician. The trial court dismissed the action, concluding that Bartee lacked standing to sue alone. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Bartee had standing to file the action under the doctrine of survivorship because the power of appointment given to Bartee and Wiley Begley as co-administrators of the estate to prosecute a wrongful death action could be exercised by Bartee as the sole remaining survivor. Remanded.View "Bartee v. Vitocruz" on Justia Law

In November 2006, The Good Samaritan Home, a nursing home where Venita Hargis was living, told Hargis’s family that Hargis had suffered a fall. Hargis died later that month as a result of the injury she sustained in the alleged fall. In November 2009, Hargis’s family discovered that Hargis’s injury had been caused by an attack from another resident and not by a fall. In October 2011, Hargis’s Estate filed a wrongful death complaint against Good Samaritan, alleging that Good Samaritan negligently caused Hargis’s death and then fraudulently concealed its negligence. Good Samaritan filed a motion to dismiss the complaint due to the Estate’s failure to file the action within two years of Hargis’s death. The trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding that fraudulent concealment does not extend or delay the two-year statutory period to file a wrongful death action. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that if a plaintiff makes the necessary factual showing, the fraudulent concealment statute may apply to toll the Wrongful Death Act’s two-year filing period.View "Alldredge v. Good Samaritan Home, Inc." on Justia Law

Mary Leila Beasley Schaeffer and the estate of Emma Glass Beasley appealed a judgment entered on a jury verdict awarding compensatory damages and punitive damages on mismanagement-of-trust and conversion claims in an action by William Poellnitz, as administrator of the estate of Edwin Glass Young, Adele Young Sommers, and Willard Young. The Beasleys raised five issues on appeal: (1) it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law (JML) on the mismanagement-of-trust claim; (2) it was entitled to a JML on the conversion claim; (3) punitive damages were not warranted, or in the alternative, the trial court improperly apportioned the punitive damages and that they were excessive and must be vacated or remitted; (4) it was entitled to a JML on the Youngs claim to a one-half ownership interest in the furnishings and heirlooms from the estate or to a reduction of the value of those furnishings and heirlooms; and (5) it was entitled to a JML on all of its counterclaims for moneys loaned to the Youngs. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in denying the Beasleys motions for a JML as to the mismanagement-of-trust claim. The Court also reversed the award of punitive damages with respect to that claim. The trial court also erred in denying the motion for a JML filed by Emma's estate as to the conversion claim. The Court affirmed as to the conversion claim against Mary, including the amount of the compensatory damages awarded the Youngs on that claim. However, because there was no clear and convincing evidence that Mary "consciously and deliberately engaged in oppression, fraud, wantonness, or malice," the Court reversed the trial court's judgment insofar as it awarded punitive damages on the conversion claim against Mary, as well as against Emma's estate. The Court affirmed the judgment as to the Young branch's one-half interest in the furnishings and heirlooms in the house and on the Beasleys counterclaims for money loaned. View "Beasley v. Poellnitz" on Justia Law

Decedent established a Trust that required, upon Decedent’s death, the trustee to distribute a parcel of land to the trustee and to distribute the remainder of the land to Decedent’s children. The Trust filed a complaint for eviction for unlawfully holding over after the termination of tenancy against Defendants, Decedent’s children. The district court entered judgment in favor of the Trust. Defendants appealed, arguing that the Trust was not a landlord and Defendants were not tenants, but rather, tenants in common with the trustee. Therefore, Defendants argued, an action for eviction could not lie. The superior court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, concluding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that the Trust lacked standing. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that the superior court did have jurisdiction over trespass and ejectment matters, and therefore, the motion justice erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Remanded for an evidentiary hearing with respect to the issue of standing.View "Joseph P. Notarianni Revocable Trust v. Notarianni" on Justia Law

Michael Weatherbee brought litigation to recover money misappropriated by his sister, Peggy McPike, while she was handling their parents’ money before their deaths. The superior court entered judgment in favor of the parents’ estates in the amount of $92,400 in restitution. The probate court subsequently directed that Weatherbee be compensated of the estates for attorney fees and expenses. McPike appealed, claiming, among other things, that the probate court erred in applying the common fund doctrine to require that attorney fees be paid by the estates. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that neither the common fund doctrine nor the Probate Code nor any other equitable exception to the American Rule provided a basis for the award of attorney fees out of the estates.View "In re Estate of Weatherbee" on Justia Law

After Decedent died in 2012, Ryan Gray was appointed as personal representative of Decedent’s estate. The final value of the estate was more than $5 million. When filing a petition for formal probate of the will, Gray submitted a request for a personal representative fee in the amount of two and a half percent of the estate. Five heirs of the estate objected to the request as excessive and unwarranted. The county court determined that Gray was entitled to a fee of $25,000 and overruled Gray’s motion to reconsider the fee. The Supreme Court affirmed the award of a personal representative fee of $25,000, holding that the award was neither contrary to the law nor arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.View "In re Estate of Gsantner" on Justia Law

In 1991, Husband and Wife were married in Florida. Later that year, the couple signed a postnuptial agreement expressly providing that Florida law would apply. The agreement contained a provision stating that Wife waived all claims against Husband’s estate upon his death, including her elective share. In 2005, the couple moved to Iowa. After Husband died in 2012, Wife claimed her spousal elective share under Iowa law. The agreement was enforceable under Florida law, but Wife argued that the agreement could not be enforced in Iowa because it would violate Iowa’s public policy against postnuptial agreements waiving a spouse’s elective share. The district court denied relief based on the choice of law provision in the agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Florida law applied to the enforceability of Wife’s waiver of her spousal elective share contained in the agreement.View "Hussemann v. Hussemann " on Justia Law

After Decedent died in 2010, Appellee, Decedent’s wife, filed a complaint seeking to have a Will and Trust Decedent executed in 2009 set aside on grounds of incapacity and undue influence, or alternatively, to elect to take against the Will. The circuit court concluded (1) Appellee’s election take against the Will of Decedent was valid; and (2) Decedent’s intent in creating the Trust was to deprive Appellee of her elective share in his Estate, and therefore, the Trust assets would be included as part of the Estate for the limited purpose of calculating Appellee’s elective share. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) including the assets of the Trust in Decedent’s estate; (2) finding that Decedent intended to defraud Appellee of her statutory rights to his property; and (3) finding that when a settlor creates an inter vivos revocable trust with the intent to deprive his or her surviving spouse of marital rights to property, then the trust assets will be included in the settlor probate estate for the limited purpose of calculating the elective share.View "In re Estate of Thompson" on Justia Law

In 2008, twenty-two days before his death, Decedent amended his 2007 Living Trust. Petitioner, Decedent’s daughter, filed a complaint for inspection of records questioning the validity of the 2008 Living Trust. Petitioner subsequently requested access to a copy of the 2007 Living Trust. The trial court denied the request, finding that the unamended trust was subject to the attorney-client privilege. Thereafter, trial court found that the revisions to Decedent’s 2007 Living Trust were fair and reasonable. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court erred by failing to require that Decedent’s attorney produce the 2007 Living Trust pursuant to the testamentary exception to the attorney-client privilege, but the error was harmless.View "Zook v. Pesce" on Justia Law