Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

Bank of the Ozarks was designated as the successor trustee of the Hamilton Family Living Trust. The Trust’s primary beneficiaries were Larry Hamilton and Susan Cossey. The Bank had possession of the Trust’s assets through a custody agreement with the trustees. The Bank sent correspondence to Larry Hamilton rejecting the trusteeship but still reimbursed Hamilton for certain expenses. Cossey later brought a petition for an accounting against the Bank. The circuit court granted the petition, finding that once the Bank reimbursed Hamilton for certain expenses, the Bank accepted the trusteeship by performing duties as a trustee. The Bank appealed, arguing that it had explicitly rejected the trusteeship and was thus not required to perform an accounting. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Bank accepted the trusteeship by exercising powers as a trustee. View "Bank of the Ozarks v. Cossey" on Justia Law

After Harry Jones died, a notice to creditors was published. Neither Harry’s ex-wife, Katherine Jones, nor her guardian was ever served with a copy of the notice. Less than two years after Harry’s death, the guardian of Katherine, Edwards Golden, filed a statement of claim in the probate court asserting that Harry’s estate owed Katherine money based on a marital settlement agreement. Katherine subsequently died, and Golden was appointed as the curator of her estate. The probate court struck Golden’s claim as untimely. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded to the probate court to determine whether Katherine or her guardianship was a known or reasonably ascertainable creditor. Specifically, the court ruled that if a known or reasonably ascertainable creditor is never served with a copy of the notice to creditors, the creditor’s claim is timely if filed within two years of the decedent’s death. The Supreme Court approved of the Fourth District’s decision, holding that the three-month limitations period prescribed in Fla. Stat. 733.702(1) is not applicable to known or reasonably ascertainable creditors who are never served with a copy of the notice to creditors, and the claims of such creditors are timely if filed within two years of the decedent’s death under Fla. Stat. 733.710. View "Jones v. Golden" on Justia Law

During the course of their marriage, Caroline, a citizen of Canada, made more than $75,000 in loans to Kimberly, of Ohio, which were never repaid. A federal district court dismissed Caroline’s contract and tort lawsuit. While appeal was pending, Kimberly died and Caroline substituted the Estate as the real party in interest. The Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal, finding that neither the domestic relations exception nor the probate exception to federal diversity under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) applied. Because a court in Canada had dismissed divorce proceedings upon notice of Caroline’s death, there was no risk of a decision incompatible with a divorce decree, and, at the time Caroline filed the federal complaint, the property that she sought was not “in the custody of a state probate court.” View "Chevalier v. Barnhart" on Justia Law

Attorney William Salzwedel appealed a $96,077.14 judgment surcharging him for excessive attorney's/trustee's fees, medical expert fees, and costs incurred while acting as the temporary trustee of the Moore Family Trust. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the finding that the fees were unreasonable, and Salzwedel's trust accounting demonstrates that the fees and expenses were excessive. The court found that Salzwedel was repeatedly warned that he had a conflict of interest acting as trustee and as the attorney for a mentally impaired client in a conservatorship proceeding. He had never served as a trustee or been involved in a conservatorship before but perceived it as a license to zealously fight for Moore no matter what the cost. The court denied Salzwedel's remaining claims and affirmed the judgment. View "Friend v. Salzwedel" on Justia Law

Diversicare Leasing Corp. d/b/a Canterbury Healthcare Facility ("Canterbury") appealed an order denying its motion seeking to compel arbitration of a wrongful-death claim filed by Betty Hubbard, as the personal representative of the estate of Johnathan Hubbard. Johnathan was diagnosed with cerebral palsy when he was six months old, which caused him to be developmentally delayed and to suffer from a seizure disorder. Johnathan could not walk and was confined to a wheelchair his entire life. He could not speak; he could not feed, clean, or dress himself; he had no use of his hands; and he could not otherwise communicate his needs to others. Johnathan spent various periods of his life in residential-care facilities. Betty made all health-care decisions relating to Johnathan's care and executed all documents in furtherance of that care. Betty executed a number of documents upon Johnathan's admission to Canterbury, including the admission agreement and the arbitration agreement made the basis of this appeal. Johnathan was found unresponsive by the Canterbury staff in early 2011, and was transferred to a local hospital. Johnathan was diagnosed with sepsis; he died on February 21, 2011. Betty sued Canterbury asserting a wrongful-death claim. Canterbury moved the trial court to compel arbitration of Betty's wrongful-death claim and to stay the claim pending the arbitration. Betty argued in response to the motion to compel that she lacked the legal authority to bind Johnathan to the arbitration agreement because at the time the agreement was executed Johnathan was incapacitated and was 21 years old and had reached the age of majority, and she did not hold his power of attorney nor had she been appointed his personal representative or guardian by any court. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order denying Canterbury's motion to compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings. Canterbury appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Betty could not be bound to the arbitration agreement in her capacity as the personal representative of Johnathan's estate when she signed the arbitration agreement in what amounts to her capacity as Johnathan's relative or next friend. View "Diversicare Leasing Corp. v. Hubbard" on Justia Law

August Schreiber’s (the decedent) will devised three lots and five certificates of deposit (CDs) to named beneficiaries (the beneficiaries). Before the decedent died, he sold the lots and the CDs. The personal representative, who was also the residuary beneficiary of the will, concluded that the decedent spent the process of the sales prior to his death. The personal representative filed a final accounting and petition for distribution calling for the beneficiaries to receive nothing and the residuary beneficiary to receive the net distributable estate. The district court denied the final accounting and petition for distribution. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) correctly concluded that the decedent did not intend ademption of his specific devise of the lots, so the proceeds of the sale of the lots were to be distributed to the beneficiaries, regardless of whether the original funds could be traced; (2) incorrectly concluded that the decedent did not intend ademption of the devise of the CDs and thus erred in ordering the personal representative to distribute to the beneficiaries the value of those CDs; and (3) did not err when it denied the final accounting submitted by the personal representative. Remanded. View "In re Estate of Schreiber" on Justia Law

Virginia Jepsen executed her last will and testament on July 1, 2009, and died on November 16, 2011. On December 20, 2011, the superior court admitted Jepsen's will to probate, declared the estate was solvent, and appointed Julie Miles as personal representative (PR) with nonintervention powers. On March 22, 2012, Jepsen's adult son, Mack, filed a petition contesting the validity of Jepsen's will. Mack's attorney e-mailed the petition to the PR's attorney the same day it was filed. There was nothing in the record showing that the PR affirmatively agreed to accept e-mail service on her attorney in lieu of personal service on the PR. On April27, 2012, the PR filed a response to Mack's petition, denying its substantive allegations but not raising any affirmative defenses. On October 31, 2012, the PR filed a motion to dismiss Mack's petition because it was not personally served within 90 days of filing. The trial court initially granted the PR' s motion but reversed itself on reconsideration, holding that service under RCW 11.24.010 went solely to personal jurisdiction and that any objection on that basis was waived. The PR appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished decision. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the will contest petition was never personally served on the personal representative, so the action was therefore never fully commenced and should have been dismissed. View "In re Estate of Jepsen" on Justia Law

On October 14, 2010, OneWest Bank sued Standard, as trustee, and unknown trust beneficiaries, to foreclose a “reverse equity” adjustable-rate mortgage on property held by the trust and executed in 2009. Standard filed an answer and counterclaim on July 19, 2011, seeking to rescind the mortgage, alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). 15 U.S.C. 1601. The circuit court dismissed. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that Standard was not an “obligor” under TILA and was not entitled to rescind the transaction. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. The trustee has legal and equitable title to the property and is the only party with an ownership interest in the property since the beneficiary’s interest is in the trust itself and is considered personal property. Standard, was entitled to receive TILA disclosures, including notice of the right to rescind after it entered into the consumer credit transaction. Because TILA disclosures were not provided to Standard, the three-day right to rescind period was extended to three years. Standard timely exercised its right to rescind when it gave notice on June 2, 2011. View "Fin. Freedom Acquisition, LLC v. Standard Bank & Trust Co." on Justia Law

The estate of husband, William E. Simendinger, appealed an injunction order by the Superior Court that encumbered all real property held by the estate. Husband's estate also challenged the family court's award of attorney's fees. Wife Connie Simendinger and husband were married in 1987. They divorced in 2014. The final order and decree of divorce incorporated a stipulation between the parties, which provided in pertinent part that in lieu of alimony, the husband shall pay to the wife the sum of $2,250,000 ($50,000 within 30 days and the balance of $2,200,000 in one year). This amount was secured by real estate, and had been owned solely by the husband, free and clear of all mortgages. Wife received the $50,000, but husband did not subsequently pay the $2.2 million balance or secure the unpaid amount in real estate. After the thirty-day deadline passed, wife filed a motion for contempt and enforcement, as well as a motion for attorney's fees. The family court set a hearing date for August 2014 to determine how best to proceed. The decree nisi became absolute on May 3, 2014. Then husband died unexpectedly on July 14. His estate was substituted as party. The family court denied the contempt motion, and enjoined the estate from disposing or otherwise encumbering any real estate that might be subject to the divorce decree stipulation. On appeal, husband's estate argued that the family court abused its discretion by: (1) issuing an injunction against husband's estate absent a hearing to show that husband had violated a court order; (2) including certain "business properties" within the scope of the injunction; and (3) awarding attorney's fees to wife without first clearly establishing a factual basis to support an award of attorney's fees. Upon review of the family court record, the Supreme Court found no reversible error, and affirmed. View "Simendinger v. Simendinger" on Justia Law

After almost five years of litigation, the probate court issued its final judgment in the formal testate proceeding concerning the estate of Mildred D. MacComb. James Richman appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court rejected Richman’s brief and his amended brief and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Richman asked that the Court reconsider the rejection of his amended brief and the dismissal of his appeal. The Supreme Judicial Court denied the motion for reconsideration, as Richman failed to comply with the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure and a direct order from the Court. View "In re Estate of MacComb" on Justia Law