Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

The district court did not err when it declined to apply Montana’s anti-lapse statute, Mont. Code Ann. 72-2-717(2), to the Armond W. Tonn Testamentary Trust.Armond W. Tonn’s last will and testament created a trust for the benefit of his three children - William Tonn, Marc Tonn, and Elizabeth Sylvis. When William passed away, the trustee began to distribute one-third of the Trust income to the William Heirs and two-thirds to Elizabeth after Marc passed away. Concerned about the unequal Trust income distributions, the William Heirs filed a petition claiming that in addition to the one-third William Tonn share, they were entitled to one-half of the principal and income attributable to Marc’s share of the Trust. The district court granted summary judgment to the Elizabeth Heirs and awarded them Marc’s share of the trust. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, where Armond specifically listed the order in which he wanted distributions to take place and where the William Heirs were not included in the distribution of Marc’s one-third share of the Trust, Armond’s intent regarding distribution was clear and the anti-lapse statute did not apply. View "Tonn v. Estate of Elizabeth Sylvis" on Justia Law

The district court did not err when it declined to apply Montana’s anti-lapse statute, Mont. Code Ann. 72-2-717(2), to the Armond W. Tonn Testamentary Trust.Armond W. Tonn’s last will and testament created a trust for the benefit of his three children - William Tonn, Marc Tonn, and Elizabeth Sylvis. When William passed away, the trustee began to distribute one-third of the Trust income to the William Heirs and two-thirds to Elizabeth after Marc passed away. Concerned about the unequal Trust income distributions, the William Heirs filed a petition claiming that in addition to the one-third William Tonn share, they were entitled to one-half of the principal and income attributable to Marc’s share of the Trust. The district court granted summary judgment to the Elizabeth Heirs and awarded them Marc’s share of the trust. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, where Armond specifically listed the order in which he wanted distributions to take place and where the William Heirs were not included in the distribution of Marc’s one-third share of the Trust, Armond’s intent regarding distribution was clear and the anti-lapse statute did not apply. View "Tonn v. Estate of Elizabeth Sylvis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that Florence Larson, mother of Dwight and Doug Larson, properly and without undue influence, gifted her shares in the family farm corporation to Doug. Specifically, the court held (1) the district court did not err in finding no undue influence by Doug over Florence; (2) Dwight could not raise the argument that the gift of stock certificates was a contract for which Doug offered no consideration for the first time on appeal; and (3) the district court did not err in finding that Florence made a valid gift of company stock certificates to Doug. View "Larson v. Larson" on Justia Law

The district court did not err in denying a motion for relief from a formal testacy order under Mont. R. Civ. P. 60(b) filed by Appellant, the decedent’s wife. The Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in determining that Rule 60(b) did not apply in this case and that, rather, Appellant’s motion for relief from the formal testacy order must be considered under Mont. Code Ann. 72-3-317; (2) the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to modify a formal testacy order under section 72-3-317(4); (3) the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s request for imposition of a constructive trust; and (4) the personal representative was entitled to attorney fees under Mont. Code Ann. 72-12-206. View "In re Estate of Erickson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that “devisees” are “interested persons” under Mont. Code Ann. 72-1-103(12) and (25) and Mont. Code Ann. 72-5-413 without possessing any other right or claim, and therefore, Petitioners had standing to bring their petition to remove Respondent as conservator for Gregory Engellant. Section 72-5-413 allows a “person interested in the welfare” of a conserved person to petition for an order removing the conservator. The district court concluded that Petitioners were not interested persons because they were only devisees under Gregory’s will and therefore had only an expectancy interest that was insufficient to grant them standing. The Supreme Court reversed in an opinion limited to the issue of standing, holding that the term “interested person” defined in section 72-1-103(25) includes Petitioners. View "In re Estate of Gregory Engellant" on Justia Law

In 2010, Helen Edwards executed a will and created a trust leaving the majority of her estate to her niece, G.G. Verone. In 2014, Edwards executed a new will and amended her trust by leaving much of her estate to her handyman, Paul Degel, and to her housekeeper, Nancy Schulz. After Edwards died, Schulz petitioned for probate of the 2012 will. Verone cross-petitioned for probate of the 2010 will and for validation of the 2010 trust. A jury found in a special verdict that Degel or Schulz procured the 2012 will and 2012 trust by undue influence, fraud, or duress. The trial court, however, denied Verone’s requests to admit the 2010 will to probate, to validate the 2010 trust, and for attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) substantial credible evidence existed to support the jury’s findings that the 2012 will and the 2012 trust were procured by undue influence, fraud, or duress; (2) the district court erred in refusing to admit the 2010 will to probate or to enforce the 2010 trust following the jury’s special verdict; and (3) the district court erred in refusing to award Verone attorney fees and certain costs. View "In re Estate of Edwards" on Justia Law

After John McClure’s death, his widow (Ellie) and his children (collectively, Siblings) embarked on contentious litigation regarding the McClure Family Trust. Ellie filed suit seeking to enforce an amendment to the Trust. The district court denied relief, concluding that, under the Trust’s plain language, Ellie had no interest in any of the Trust’s assets. The court also denied Ellie’s motion for partial summary judgment asking the court to forfeit Siblings’ interests for purportedly contesting the Trust’s validity. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) Ellie had an interest in Trust assets, and therefore, the district court incorrectly concluded that the amendment was invalid; and (2) the district court correctly determined that Siblings did not forfeit their interest in the Trust. Remanded. View "In re Estate of McClure" on Justia Law

A.M.M.’s two children - Timothy McCann and Genet McCann (together, Appellants) - appealed from three groups of orders entered by the district court during actions it took to oversee the guardianship and conservatorship of A.M.M., including a preliminary injunction, Rule 11 sanctions, and a request for recusal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting the Guardian’s motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Appellants from engaging in certain activities the Guardian believed were detrimental to A.M.M.’s health; (2) the district court did not err by denying Genet’s motion to recuse; and (3) the district court did not err by sanctioning Genet for violating Rule 11. View "In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of A.M.M." on Justia Law

In 2000, Paul Kurth, who never married or had children, died at the age of eighty-two. In 2013, Sinda and Marty Puryer, Kurth’s niece and her husband, petitioned to probate a document entitled “Instructions and Last Will and Testament of Paul L. Kurth.” Marty claimed Kurth dictated the contents of this document to him and then signed it in the presence of two witnesses. Kurth’s nephew challenged the will. The district court eventually ruled that Mont. Code Ann. 72-3-122(1) barred probate of Kurth’s alleged will and, therefore, that Kurth had died intestate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly concluded that Kurth died intestate and that his estate must be distributed in accordance with Montana’s intestacy statutes. View "In re Estate of Kurth" on Justia Law

Roy Volk and Pamela Dee Volk had a son, RBV, in the fall of 2000. In 2011, the marriage was dissolved. At the time of the divorce, Roy owned two term life insurance policies. While a statutorily-mandated temporary restraining order was still in effect, Roy changed the beneficiary designations on both policies and designated his sister, Valerie Goeser, as the new beneficiary. Just over four months after the divorce was final, Roy died. Valerie received the life insurance proceeds from both policies. Pamela subsequently filed this action on behalf of RBV against Valerie and Roy’s estate seeking a constructive trust over the insurance policy payouts for the benefit of RBV. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Valerie, concluding that Valerie was not unjustly enriched when she received Roy’s life insurance proceeds. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Valerie was unjustly enriched because Roy’s errors in changing the beneficiary of his life insurance under the statutorily-mandated restraining order invalidated his designations on the insurance policies, and a constructive trust was created on RBV's behalf as a result of these errors. Remanded. View "Volk v. Goeser" on Justia Law