Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court dismissing Appellants' creditor claim against the estate of John Calvin, holding that the circuit court properly dismissed the creditor claim.Calvin was the lifetime beneficiary of the Ben W. Calvin Trust, and Appellants - Calvin's children - were the remainder beneficiaries. After Calvin died, Appellants brought a creditor claim against his estate, alleging that Calvin had received disbursements of principal from the Trust in violation of the terms of the Trust. The circuit court dismissed the creditor claim, concluding that the Trust disbursements to Calvin were proper under the terms of the Trust. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellants failed to show that they had standing to assert a claim against the Estate. View "In re Estate Of Calvin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court holding that property owned by Sharon Orr-Hanson and her husband, Bennet Hanson, was owned as tenants in common and ordering partition of the property after Sharon's death, holding that the circuit court properly found that the property was owned as tenants in common.The personal representatives of Sharon's estate brought this action to have the property sold and the proceeds split evenly. The circuit court determined that a corrective deed terminated what was previously a joint tenancy and created a tenancy in common. On appeal, Bennet argued that the property was held as joint tenants and should go to him alone as the surviving joint tenant. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in concluding that the corrective deed severed Bennet's and Sharon's joint tenancy and created a tenancy in common; and (2) Bennet's remaining allegations of error were unavailing. View "Moeckly v. Hanson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment summarily dismissing Petitioners' request that the court declare an original trust and its first amendment valid, holding that the circuit court erred.After the settlor of the trust died, Petitioners filed a petition requesting judicial supervision of the trust under S.D. Codified Laws 21-22-9. Petitioners further requested a declaration of the validity of the original trust and its first amendment, arguing that subsequent amendments were invalid. The circuit court granted a successor trustee's motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that a challenge to the validity of a trust cannot be asserted in a petition for judicial supervision but could only be commenced via service of summons within one year after the settlor's death. The circuit court granted the successor trustee's motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a circuit court may consider the validity of a trust in a petition for judicial supervision, and therefore, Petitioners' petition, which included a request that the circuit court determine the validity of the trust amendments, property commenced a judicial proceeding; and (2) the trust challenge was timely because Petitioners filed their petition within the one-year timeframe after the settlor's death. View "In re Carver Revocable Trust" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision invalidating the will and codicil of Dora Lee Gaaskjolen on the basis of undue influence, holding that the circuit court's determination of undue influence was not clearly erroneous.Dora Lee and her husband, Marlin, executed reciprocal wills giving their property to one another upon death, and their daughters, Audrey and Vicki, were named as equal, alternate beneficiaries. After Marlin died, Dora Lee executed a new will and, later, another will and codicil that disinherited Vicki and left her entire estate to Audrey. After Dora Lee died, Vicki challenged the will and codicil, claiming that Dora Lee lacked testamentary capacity and that Audrey had unduly influence Dora Lee. The circuit court concluded that Dora Lee had testamentary capacity but that Dora Lee's last will and codicil were the result of undue influence by Audrey. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding the last will and the codicil invalid because of Audrey's undue influence. View "In re Estate Of Gaaskjolen" on Justia Law

In this case concerning the will of Russell Tank naming his neighbor Jason Bender as his sole heir and disinheriting his four adult children (Children) the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the circuit court dismissing Children's petition challenging the will, holding that summary judgment was improperly granted on one of the children's claims of undue influence.Children filed a petition challenging the will naming Bender as Russell's sole heir on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, insane delusions, and undue influence. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Bender. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact showing Russell lacked testamentary capacity to execute the will; (2) did not err in determining that there were no genuine issues of material fact showing Russell suffered from an insane delusion affecting the terms of his will; and (3) erred in determining that that there were no material issues of fact on one of the children's claim that the will was the product of undue influence but did not err in concluding that there was no evidence to support the remaining children's claim of undue influence. View "In re Estate Of Tank" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of the Estate of Kenneth Stoebner in this breach of fiduciary duty claim against Curtis Huether, who served as Stoebner's attorney-in-fact under a power of attorney, holding that summary judgment was properly granted.Under his role of Stoebner's attorney-infant Huether executed a sale of Stoebner's real property to himself four days before Stoebner died. Stoebner's Estate commenced this action for breach of fiduciary duty, alleging that Huether engaged in an act of self-dealing when he executed the purchase agreement and warranty deed in his own favor as the attorney-in-fact for Stoebner. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the Estate and ordered that the sale be declared null and void. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that no genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding Huether's fiduciary duty to Stoebner to not engage in acts of self-dealing under the provisions of the power of attorney. View "Estate of Stoebner v. Huether" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court finding that Stanton Fox had died intestate, determining Fox’s heirs, and entering letters for co-personal representatives, holding that the circuit court did not commit clear error in the proceedings below.When Fox died he was survived by five siblings. Lynette Herstedt and Fox were in an intimate relationship for more than twenty years before Fox died, but the relationship ended prior to his death. Before he died, Fox drafted a handwritten document stating that he wished to revoke all prior wills and codicils. Herstedt filed an application for informal probate and submitted a copy of a former will Fox had drafted. Fox’s siblings claimed the original will was revoked by the subsequent amendment. After a hearing, the circuit court ultimately found that Fox had died intestate, determined Fox’s heirs, and appointed co-personal representatives. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not clearly err in finding that Herstedt had not proffered a valid will because Fox had revoked it prior to his death; (2) did not err in granting the various petitions; and (3) did not abuse its discretion in proceeding with a hearing on November 1, 2017. View "In re Estate of Fox" on Justia Law