Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

On remand, the district court granted Wayne Dawson's Motion for Relief from Judgment and issued its Second Amended Judgment, which in part quieted title to and in part took judicial notice of four undivided one-fourth interests in a forty-acre parcel of land located in Teton County. On appeal, John Bach contended, among other things, that Dawson lacked standing to file his Motion for Relief from Judgment and that the district court abused its discretion and lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction when it granted the Motion for Relief from Judgment and entered the Second Amended Judgment. Because all of Bach's claims were either frivolous or waived, the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Amended Judgment. View "McLean v. Cheyovich Family Trust" on Justia Law

This case concerned an appeal of a magistrate court's Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order in denying Appellant Maureen Erickson's Motion for Partial Distribution of her mother's estate. The magistrate court found that the property Maureen sought to partially distribute was not part of the assets of her mother's estate. On appeal to the district court, the court affirmed the decision of the magistrate court and alternatively found that the matter was barred by the statute of limitations. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision that this case was barred by the statute of limitations. View "Erickson v. McKee" on Justia Law

This case concerned the ownership status of Coolwater Ridge Road in Idaho County. The predecessors in interest of appellant Paddison Scenic Properties, Family Trust, L.C. granted rights of way to the United States for a road which became Coolwater Ridge Road. In the district court, Paddison sought a declaratory judgment that the rights of way did not constitute a public road or highway under Idaho law. That court held that the rights of way were public because the criteria for common law dedication were met. Upon review, the Idaho Supreme Court vacated the district court's judgment because it concluded this case was not ripe for adjudication. View "Paddison Scenic Properties Family Trust v. Idaho County" on Justia Law

This case was the third appeal to the Supreme Court arising from a 2002 real estate transaction between Thomas and Colleen Birch-Maile and the Theodore L. Johnson Revocable Trust. Attorney and Real Estate Broker Thomas Maile advised the Trust to reject an offer to sell certain trust property. Months later, Mr. Maile submitted an earnest money agreement for the same property. The prospective buyers, collectively the Taylors, sued the Mailes and Berkshire Investments, LLC (the company that the Mailes formed and to whom they assigned rights to the property) for professional malpractice and breach of fiduciary duties. The Mailes filed suit seeking to set aside a 2006 judgment against them, which the Court affirmed in the second appeal. The district court determined on summary judgment that the 2006 judgment was res judicata with regard to the issues raised in the Mailes' complaint. At trial the jury awarded damages against the Mailes on the Taylors' counterclaim. The Mailes appealed and the Supreme Court affirmed: the district court was correct in summarily dismissing the Mailes' lawsuit and denying their motion for JNOV. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney to two of the prospective buyers. View "Berkshire Investments, LLC v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this was the denial of attorney fees under Idaho Code section 41-1839 on the ground that the insured's proof of loss was insufficient under the statute because it did not provide the insurer with the legal theory upon which coverage was later determined to exist. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment because a proof of loss need not include an analysis of the proper theory of coverage under the insurance policy. View "Estate of Benjamin Holland v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Ins." on Justia Law

Washington Trust Bank (WTB) was the trustee of the trust created by Althea Bowman's last will and testament. Althea's four surviving children were the trust beneficiaries. Three of these beneficiaries argued to the district court that the Trustee exceeded its authority by encumbering a commercial property held by the trust with a deed of trust, and advancing funds to a fourth beneficiary. In that transaction, separate divisions of WTB acted as trustee (Trustee) and as the beneficiary of the deed of trust. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Trustee. Two of the beneficiaries appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order of dismissal because the Court concluded the Bowmans lacked standing and they asserted claims that were not ripe. View "Blankenship v. Washington Trust Bank" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court concerned a will contest brought by Petitioner-Appellant Tanya Wooden on the basis that the Last Will and Testament of Kathleen R. Conway was executed without testamentary capacity and under the undue influence of W. Cecil Martin, Conway's son, guardian, and a will beneficiary. The magistrate court denied Petitioner's claims, and the district court affirmed on appeal. Because the Court found the magistrate court was presented with substantial and competent evidence on which to base its decision, it affirmed the district court’s appellate decision. View "RE: The Estate of Kathleen R. Conway " on Justia Law

Patricia Shelton filed suit alleging breach of contract a legal malpractice against her former attorneys Defendants-Appellants R. Bruce Owens, Jeffrey Crandall, and Owens and Crandall, PLLC (Owens). During the pendency of her action, Ms. Shelton passed away. Plaintiff-Appellee Lois Bishop sought to assert Ms. Shelton's claims as her personal representative. Owens unsuccessfully argued that the legal malpractice claim abated upon Ms. Shelton's death, and that her breach of contract claim did not state a claim. Owens appealed. Because Patricia Shelton’s legal malpractice claim sounds in tort and abated upon her death, and her breach of contract claim fails to state a claim, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in denying Owens’s motion for summary judgment and in granting Bishop’s motion to substitute as plaintiff. View "Owen v. Bishop" on Justia Law

This case involved an ongoing dispute between brothers Ron McCann (Ron) and William McCann, Jr. (Bill) concerning the operation of McCann Ranch & Livestock Company, Inc. (Ranch), a closely-held corporation created by their father, William McCann, Sr. (William, Sr.). In 1997, William, Sr.'s shares passed to a trust set up to benefit his wife Gertrude, with Gary Meisner as trustee. In 2008, Ron filed suit against Bill, the Ranch and Meisner (Respondents) alleging a breach of fiduciary duties and seeking equitable relief or, the dissolution of the corporation. The district court granted summary judgment for the Respondents. Ron appealed, arguing that the district court erred in characterizing his claims as derivative and in finding that he failed to satisfy the elements of I.C. 30-1-1430(2)(b). Ron also argued that the court incorrectly limited the scope of discovery. Respondents cross-appealed, arguing that the district court erred in failing to award them attorney's fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Respondents as they failed to establish the necessary elements set forth in I.C. 30-1-1430(2)(b). Furthermore, the Court found that the district court did not err when it denied Respondents attorney fees. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "McCann v. McCann, Jr. " on Justia Law

Petitioner Virginia Beaudoin appealed a district court's dismissal of her motion for summary judgment on a breach of fiduciary duty claim against Defendant Davidson Trust Company. The claim stemmed from Davidson Trust’s mistaken distribution of trust funds to Beaudoin when Beaudoin’s two children were, in fact, the designated beneficiaries. Because the Supreme Court found that Davidson Trust owed Petitioner no fiduciary duty at the time of the alleged breach, the Court affirmed the district court's decision dismissing Petitioner's claim.