Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing the claims brought by the Estate of Owen Thacker against Victoria Timm, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.The parties in this case were involved romantically, lived with each each other, and owned property as joint tenants. After Plaintiffs were appointed co-guardians and co-conservators of Thacker they filed this suit on behalf of Thacker against Timm, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and undue influence. The Estate was substituted as Plaintiff and added a claim for breach of duty as trustee of implied trust. The circuit court entered judgment in favor of Timm. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err. View "Estate of Thacker v. Timm" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's application for attorney fees as a co-trustee under S.D. Codified Laws 55-3-13, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in awarding Appellant nothing in attorney fees.James Endres created an irrevocable family trust, designating his seven children as beneficiaries. The children were later designated as co-trustees. Appellant, one of the children, commenced litigation seeking court supervision of the trust and to remove five of the co-trustees for breach of fiduciary duties. The parties eventually settled all issues except for Appellant's application for attorney fees. The circuit court denied attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellant was entitled to attorney fees under section 55-3-13 for his actions as a co-trustee which were productive to actual benefit of the trust. View "Endres v. Endres" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court on remand declaring that Lynn and Lisa Schock satisfied the conditions of Bonnie J. Pease's handwritten holographic will, holding that the circuit court did not err.After the Supreme Court held that the will in this case appointed the Schocks as the personal representatives and gave them Bonnie's entire estate subject to conditions, the circuit court, on remand, declared that the Schocks satisfied the will's conditions and approved the proposed final distribution of the estate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the Schocks satisfied the conditions. View "In re Estate of Hubert" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court granting Sally Johnson's request to supervise and reform a trust and denied Mindy Smith's petition seeking clarification from the court and requesting other relief, holding that the circuit court erred in denying certain attorney fees.After Fred Peterson died, his daughter Sally filed separate petitions seeking court supervision and reformation of one of the two trusts he created in his lifetime. Another daughter, Mindy opposed the reformation and requested other relief. After a trial, the circuit court granted Sally's petition to reform the trust at issue and denied all of Mindy's petitions and motions. Sally subsequently filed a motion for reimbursement of attorney fees and expenses, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded the case, holding (1) the circuit court was authorized to award Sally attorney fees under S.D. Codified Laws 15-17-38; (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the litigation did not provide the trust with an economic benefit; and (3) attorney fees were authorized for Sally's efforts to vindicate her father's intent. View "In re Petersen Trusts" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the S.D. Codified Laws chapter 21-65 does not create a private right of action that survives a vulnerable adult's death and that a predicate theft conviction is not required to maintain an action authorized under S.D. Codified Laws 22-46-13.Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of Richard Hermanek's estate, claiming that Defendants, who previously served as Hermanek's attorneys-in-fact pursuant to a durable power of attorney (POA), breached their fiduciary duties under the POA and converted Hermanek's property to their own use. The district court certified a question of law addressing Defendants' claim that an action alleging abuse of a vulnerable adult does not survive the death of the adult at issue. The Supreme Court answered (1) a vulnerable adult or substitute petition has a private right of action for the financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult, but the private right of action cannot be commenced under chapter 21-65 after the vulnerable adult's death; and (2) financial exploitation remains actionable after a person's death under section 22-46-13, and a criminal conviction is not required as a predicate to a civil cause of action for exploitation. View "Hermanek-Peck v. Spry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the circuit court granting summary judgment in this action brought by the personal representative of the Estate of Susan Markve against Kenneth Markve (Ken) alleging undue influence, conversion, statutory fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and common law fraud, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained.The Estate brought this action alleging that Susan lacked capacity to execute a quitclaim deed to a certain house and the power of attorney naming Ken as her agent. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Ken, concluding that no factual basis supported the Estate's claims. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that questions of fact should have precluded summary judgment on several of the Estate's claims. View "Johnson v. Markve" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court denying the motions filed by Kristina Libbert and Darren Hickey to intervene in the underlying petition challenging the validity of an amendment to the Shirley A. Hickey Trust and for clarification and reconsideration, holding that a portion of the order denying the motion for clarification and reconsideration must be vacated.Nearly one year after Bradley Hickey filed a petition challenging the validity of an amendment to the Shirley A. Hickey Trust Kristina and Darren moved to intervene in the petition. The circuit court denied the motion on the grounds that it was untimely. Thereafter, Kristina and Darren filed their motion for clarification and reconsideration, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the order denying intervention, holding that remand was required to consider the timeliness of the motion to intervene under the standards set forth in S.D. Codified Laws 15-6-24(a)(2); and (2) vacated the portion of the circuit court's order on the motion for clarification and reconsideration, holding that the trial court must reconsider this order after reconsidering Kristina and Darren's request for intervention. View "In re Hickey Living Trust" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court determining that Denise Schipke-Smeenk was not entitled to specific performance of an agreement she made with her husband that neither party would revoke their specific wills without the other's consent, holding that the circuit court erred in determining that the claim was not timely or properly presented.Denise and Neil Smeenk executed mutual wills in 2017 and the agreement at issue. In 2019, Neil executed a new will without Denise's consent. After Neil died, the circuit court appointed Denise as personal representative of Neil's estate and ordered the 2019 will to be probated. The circuit court denied Denise's motion seeking specific performance of the agreement, determining that the motion was not properly presented as a creditor claim and was untimely and that Denise was not entitled to specific performance. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) erred in determining that the claim was not timely and properly presented; but (2) correctly ruled that Denise was not entitled to specific performance. View "In re Estate of Smeenk" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying a petition seeking the appointment of a special administrator to pursue a wrongful death claim for Dale Dean Jones's estate, holding that the court abused its discretion by failing to address certain discovery motions before deciding the petition for special administrator.After Dale died intestate, the circuit court appointed Dale's wife, Lisa Jones, as his estate's personal representative. Douglas Jones and Jessica Jones, Dale's adult children, subsequently petitioned for the appointment of a special administrator to pursue a wrongful death claim for Dale's estate and further served discovery requests on Lisa seeking information pertaining to their petition. The court denied the petition for special administrator and determined that the discovery issues were moot. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court denied Doug and Jessica the opportunity to develop and present evidence that may be relevant to their petition. View "In re Estate of Jones" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the circuit court granting summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff's claims alleging improper distribution, fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, holding that the circuit court erred in part.Clifford Olson was the son of Edward Bickel but did not have a relationship with Edward and had never met any of his siblings while Edward was alive. After Edward died, his estate was distributed intestate to his three children born from two different marriages. After he learned about Edward's death, Clifford brought this action against his siblings. The circuit court granted summary judgment against Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that material issues of fact were in dispute as to certain issues, precluding summary judgment in part. View "Olson v. Berggren" on Justia Law