Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

Vernon K. Smith, Jr. was declared a vexatious litigant by the Fourth District Administrative District Judge (ADJ) in Idaho. This order prevents Smith from filing new litigation pro se in Idaho courts without obtaining prior permission from a judge. The determination arose from Smith's conduct in litigation concerning the administration of his mother Victoria H. Smith’s estate. Smith, a former attorney, was involved in contentious probate proceedings after his brother successfully challenged their mother's will, which had left the entire estate to Smith. The estate was subsequently administered as intestate, leading to multiple appeals and disciplinary actions against Smith by the Idaho State Bar.The district court found that Smith repeatedly filed frivolous and unmeritorious motions, including petitions to remove the personal representative (PR) and the PR’s counsel, motions to disqualify the district court judge, and objections to court orders. These actions were deemed to lack legal or factual basis and were intended to cause unnecessary delay. The PR of the estate moved to have Smith declared a vexatious litigant under Idaho Court Administrative Rule 59(d)(3), which the district court supported, leading to the referral to the ADJ.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the ADJ’s decision. The court held that the ADJ did not abuse its discretion in declaring Smith a vexatious litigant. The ADJ acted within the legal standards set forth in Rule 59(d) and reached its decision through an exercise of reason. The court also found that Smith’s due process argument was not preserved for appeal as it was raised for the first time. The court declined to award attorney fees to the ADJ, concluding that Smith’s appeal, although unsuccessful, was not frivolous or unreasonable. View "Smith v. Hippler" on Justia Law

Jacquelin Glassie filed a claim against the estate of her father, Donelson Glassie, alleging he breached a property settlement agreement by failing to adequately fund a trust established for her benefit. The executor of Donelson's estate, Paul Doucette, disallowed the claim, leading to a lawsuit in the Superior Court. After Jacquelin's death, her sister Alison, as executrix of Jacquelin's estate, continued the lawsuit. The Superior Court initially granted summary judgment for the estate, but the Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trustee of the trust, Wells Fargo, was the proper plaintiff. Wells Fargo then assigned its claims to Alison.A jury trial in the Superior Court resulted in a verdict for Alison, awarding her $1,164,138.43 in damages, which, with prejudgment interest, totaled $2,856,572.45. The jury also rejected the estate's counterclaim that Jacquelin had forfeited her interest under Donelson's will. The defendant, Doucette, filed a notice of appeal but failed to timely order the trial transcripts, leading Alison to move to dismiss the appeal.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case after the Superior Court granted Alison's motion to dismiss the appeal due to Doucette's failure to timely order the transcripts and follow proper procedures for an extension. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that Doucette's reasons for the delay, including hopes for mediation and cost-saving, did not constitute excusable neglect. The Court noted the extensive litigation history and the trial justice's efforts to move the case forward, concluding that the deadlines were necessary and should be adhered to. View "Glassie v. Doucette" on Justia Law

Carol Wagner, the plaintiff, claims entitlement to a surviving spousal share from the estate of John Chislett, her former husband. She seeks to rescind a quitclaim deed she granted to the decedent, alleging it was obtained through fraud. Additionally, she challenges the validity of a 1974 Dominican Republic divorce decree obtained by the decedent, asserting it is invalid under New Hampshire law. The defendants, Sally Chislett, Kevin Chislett, and Wai Kwan Chislett, contest her claims.The Circuit Court (Kissinger, J.) ruled against the plaintiff, determining that her rescission action was barred by the statute of limitations and that her challenge to the divorce decree was barred by laches due to her forty-seven-year delay in raising the issue. Consequently, the court dismissed her claims.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. The court upheld the lower court's decision, affirming that the statute of limitations for actions involving real property, RSA 508:2, applied to the plaintiff's rescission claim, which had expired. The court also agreed with the lower court's application of the doctrine of laches, finding that the plaintiff's delay in challenging the divorce decree was unreasonable and prejudicial to the defendants. The court noted that the plaintiff had remarried in reliance on the divorce decree and waited nearly five decades to contest its validity, during which time both her second husband and the decedent had died.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claims, concluding that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court's decision effectively barred the plaintiff from claiming a surviving spousal share from the decedent's estate. View "Wagner v. Chislett" on Justia Law

Lea and Ann Brent were married in 1953 and divorced in 1983. As part of their divorce, Lea agreed to pay Ann $5,600 per month in permanent periodic alimony until her death or remarriage. Ann died in 2015, never having remarried. Lea began paying less than the required amount in 2002, but Ann never filed a contempt action for the unpaid alimony. Lea died in 2021, and Ann’s Estate filed a probate claim against Lea’s Estate for unpaid alimony totaling $358,700, covering the period from 2002 to 2015.The Washington County Chancery Court found that the claim for unpaid alimony was valid but limited it to the period from July 2014 to November 2015 due to the seven-year statute of limitations. The court awarded Ann’s Estate $139,104, which included the unpaid alimony for that period plus 8 percent interest per annum. However, the court denied Lea’s Estate credit for partial alimony payments totaling $51,000 made between July 2014 and November 2015 and for a $75,143.28 life insurance proceeds payment made to Ann’s Estate in 2019.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and found that the chancery court erred in denying Lea’s Estate credit for the partial alimony payments and the life insurance proceeds payment. The Supreme Court held that the total amount of credit exceeded the total amount owed for the relevant period, leaving no unpaid alimony to award Ann’s Estate. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the chancery court’s decision and rendered judgment in favor of Lea’s Estate. View "In re The Estate of Brent v. The Estate of Brent" on Justia Law

Leslie J. Knoles (Decedent) and Ruth Catello co-owned a property as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. In 2020, Decedent recorded a quitclaim deed to herself, which, if valid, severed the joint tenancy and created a tenancy in common. Decedent died shortly after recording the deed. Decedent's four surviving siblings initiated probate proceedings to distribute her estate, including the property. Catello filed a competing petition for letters of administration and later a petition to administer a will. Concurrently, Catello sued two siblings to cancel the quitclaim deed and quiet title to the property. The siblings filed a cross-claim to partition the property by sale.The Superior Court of San Diego County entered an interlocutory judgment for partition by sale, identifying the property owners as Catello and Decedent’s estate. The judgment ordered the sale proceeds to be distributed equally between Catello and Decedent’s estate after expenses. Catello appealed, arguing that the siblings lacked standing to sue for partition because the probate court had not yet determined ownership of the property.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court held that the siblings lacked standing to bring the partition claim because their ownership interest in the property was not confirmed and was contingent upon the outcome of the ongoing probate proceedings. The court emphasized that a party seeking partition must have clear title, which the siblings did not possess. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and directed the case to be dismissed. View "Amundson v. Catello" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between two cotrustees of the William A. Rutherford Trust regarding the distribution of the trust estate following the deaths of the grantors, William and Joyce Rutherford. The plaintiff, Jeffrey A. Rutherford, and the defendant, Richard J. Slagle, could not agree on how the trust estate should be distributed. The defendant believed the trust required equal distribution among the decedent’s children, while the plaintiff disagreed.The defendant petitioned the Greenwich Probate Court to construe the trust and determine the proper distribution. The Probate Court granted the petition and ordered the trust estate to be distributed equally among the children. The plaintiff appealed this decree to the Superior Court, challenging the Probate Court’s decision and raising issues related to discovery in the Probate Court.The Superior Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, reasoning that the plaintiff’s reasons for appeal were limited to discovery issues and that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding these issues. The plaintiff then appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, arguing that summary judgment is not appropriate in probate appeals and that the Superior Court failed to conduct a de novo review of the Probate Court’s decision.The Connecticut Supreme Court held that summary judgment is available in probate appeals under Practice Book § 17-44, as the term “any action” includes probate appeals. However, the court found that the Superior Court improperly granted summary judgment because it did not engage in a de novo review of the substantive issue resolved by the Probate Court—how the trust estate should be distributed. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Rutherford v. Slagle" on Justia Law

Anna Dewdney, a children's book author, created a revocable trust in 2011, designating her daughters, Berol and Cordelia Dewdney, and her romantic partner, Ralph Duncan, IV, as beneficiaries. Initially, the trust allocated 40% of the income to each daughter and 20% to Duncan. Anna amended the trust several times, ultimately increasing Duncan's share to 50% and reducing each daughter's share to 25%. Anna passed away in 2016, and Duncan became the sole trustee. Plaintiffs allege Duncan pressured Anna to increase his share and entered into an oral agreement to make them his sole heirs in exchange for the increased distribution.The Superior Court, Windham Unit, Civil Division, granted summary judgment to Duncan on all claims brought by the plaintiffs, including intentional interference with expectation of inheritance (IIEI), breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and constructive fraud. The court ruled that plaintiffs needed to seek a remedy in probate court for their IIEI claim, failed to establish breach of contract due to anticipatory repudiation, could not show detrimental reliance for promissory estoppel, were receiving benefits from the trust for unjust enrichment, and did not meet the legal requirements for constructive fraud.The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. It recognized the tort of IIEI but held that plaintiffs must first seek a remedy in probate court due to the exclusive jurisdiction over trust administration. The court found no anticipatory breach of contract as Duncan's statement did not constitute a positive and unequivocal refusal to perform. It ruled promissory estoppel inapplicable due to the existence of a contract and lack of detrimental reliance. The unjust enrichment claim was barred as it involved trust administration, and the constructive fraud claim failed for similar jurisdictional reasons. View "Dewdney v. Duncan" on Justia Law

William H. Tatum Jr. was convicted of bank fraud and had a $15,284,348 restitution judgment against him. He owned a 50% membership interest in Tatum Land and Cattle Company, LLC (TLCC). Upon his death in 2018, his estate, including his TLCC interest, was left to his wife, Betsy Gay Roberts-Tatum. Betsy died in 2020, and her son, Zachary I. Haynie, became the executor of her estate. Darrell Tatum, William’s grandson, was appointed executor of William’s estate. The United States, Peoples Bank, and John Deere Financial filed claims against William’s estate.The Tippah County Chancery Court admitted William’s will to probate and appointed Gay as executrix. After Gay’s death, Darrell was appointed as successor executor. Darrell petitioned for the public sale of William’s TLCC interest to satisfy estate debts. Zach opposed, seeking to enforce the TLCC operating agreement’s buyout provision. The chancellor ordered the public sale, which resulted in Joe Tatum purchasing the interest for $675,000. Zach objected, arguing the sale price was inadequate and sought relief, including assignment of the promissory note and deed of trust from Peoples Bank.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case. The court found that any additional funds recovered from the estate would go to the United States due to the restitution judgment, rendering Zach’s claims moot. The court dismissed the appeal as moot, noting that a decision would not benefit Zach practically since the United States would claim any additional funds. The court affirmed the chancellor’s decisions, including the public sale and denial of Zach’s motions. View "In The Matter of The Estate Tatum" on Justia Law

Peter Farina has lived at the Victor Howell House, a group home for low-income individuals, since 1989. In 2000, the Janet Keenan Housing Corporation (JKHC), a non-profit, purchased the property to maintain it as affordable housing. Recently, JKHC attempted to sell the house to a private third party, leading to two tracks of litigation. The District of Columbia sued JKHC to halt the sale, arguing it violated JKHC’s charitable purposes. As the District and JKHC neared a settlement allowing the sale, Farina sought to intervene but was denied. Farina then filed his own lawsuit, claiming his rights under the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) and the Uniform Trust Code (UTC) were being violated.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia denied Farina’s motion to intervene in the District’s case, citing untimeliness and lack of standing. The court approved the settlement between the District and JKHC, which allowed the sale to proceed. In Farina’s separate lawsuit, the court ruled against him, stating his TOPA rights were extinguished by the court-approved settlement and that he lacked standing to bring his UTC claim.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court held that Farina’s TOPA rights were not extinguished by the settlement, as the sale was an arm’s-length transaction and not exempt under TOPA. Farina must be given the opportunity to purchase the property under TOPA. However, the court agreed with the lower court that Farina lacked standing to bring his UTC claim, as he was neither a settlor nor a special interest beneficiary of JKHC. The court affirmed the judgment in the District’s case but vacated the judgment in Farina’s case, remanding it for further proceedings to afford Farina his TOPA rights. View "Farina v. Janet Keenan Housing Corporation" on Justia Law

Richard Spizzirri and his fourth wife, Holly Lueders, entered into a prenuptial agreement requiring Spizzirri’s estate to transfer $6 million to Lueders and $3 million to her children upon his death. After Spizzirri’s death, the estate paid the stepchildren and deducted the payments as “claims against the estate” for tax purposes. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued a notice of deficiency, denying these deductions, leading the estate to petition the tax court for review.The U.S. Tax Court ruled that the transfers to the stepchildren were not deductible as “claims against the estate” because they were neither “contracted bona fide” nor “for an adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth.” The estate failed to shift the burden of proof to the Commissioner, as it did not provide credible evidence to support the deductions. The court found that the payments were essentially donative in character, as they were made to keep Lueders happy and maintain the marriage, rather than as part of an arm’s length transaction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the tax court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that the payments to the stepchildren were not contracted bona fide, as they were related to Lueders’s expectation of inheritance and lacked the characteristics of a bona fide transaction. The court emphasized that the payments were made with donative intent and were not part of an ordinary business transaction. Therefore, the estate was not entitled to deduct the $3 million transfer to the stepchildren as “claims against the estate.” View "Estate of Spizzirri v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law