Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

The decedent, Michael Gerard Schappell, died intestate in 2021, leaving no close relatives. He had a stepdaughter, Karen Ellis, who had been part of his life since she was four years old. Ellis claimed that she had a father-daughter relationship with the decedent and sought to be recognized as his heir under the doctrine of equitable adoption. She petitioned the Orphans’ Court for Montgomery County to be named the sole heir to the decedent’s estate.The Orphans’ Court denied Ellis’s initial petition but later allowed her to refile. The court then denied a motion for summary judgment filed by other potential heirs and transmitted seven issues to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for a jury trial, including whether Ellis was equitably adopted by the decedent. The Appellate Court of Maryland vacated the Orphans’ Court’s order, holding that only the issue of equitable adoption should be transmitted to the circuit court, as it involved a mixed question of fact and law.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and established a two-step test for equitable adoption. First, a claimant must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence the decedent’s intent to adopt, which can be shown through an unperformed express agreement or other acts indicating intent. Second, the claimant must show that the decedent acted in accordance with this intent by treating the claimant as a natural or legally adopted child and representing this to the public.The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court of Maryland and remanded the case to the Orphans’ Court for Montgomery County for further proceedings based on the new standard for equitable adoption. View "In re: Estate of Schappell" on Justia Law

Pauline Bennett, the settlor of a revocable living trust, engaged attorney Thomas Gentile to draft her estate planning documents. Initially, the trust instrument provided for the distribution of her properties, including a specific property, Wissahican, to her daughter Audrey upon her death. Later, due to concerns about Audrey's financial mismanagement, Pauline amended the trust to remove Audrey as a beneficiary and intended to sell Wissahican to fund her care. After Pauline's death, a dispute arose between her daughters, Madelyn and Audrey, over the ownership of Wissahican.The Circuit Court for Montgomery County ruled that the 2017 trust instrument, which provided Wissahican to Audrey, was still in effect, and thus Audrey was entitled to the property. Madelyn, as the successor trustee, then pursued claims against Gentile for legal malpractice, alleging that his negligent drafting of the 2019 trust instrument caused her to lose Wissahican. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Gentile, holding that the strict privity rule barred Madelyn's claims and that she was not a third-party beneficiary of the attorney-client relationship between Pauline and Gentile.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court held that the strict privity rule, as established in Noble v. Bruce, remains good law, meaning that a third party not in privity with an attorney cannot sue for negligence absent fraud or collusion. The court also concluded that Madelyn did not qualify as a third-party beneficiary because the primary intent of Pauline's engagement with Gentile was to ensure her own financial security and to exclude Audrey, not to benefit Madelyn directly. Therefore, Madelyn's claims against Gentile were barred, and the summary judgment in favor of Gentile was affirmed. View "Bennett v. Gentile" on Justia Law