Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

Consolidated appellate proceedings involved a dispute between the trustees and beneficiaries of the Bellingrath-Morse Foundation Trust ("the Trust"). In appellate case no. SC-2023-0001, beneficiaries of the Trust, Rhodes College, Huntingdon College, and Stillman College, petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court Court to vacate its November 23, 2022, order granting the trustees of the Trust relief from a final judgment pursuant to Rule 60 (b)(5), Ala.R.Civ.P. In appellate case no. SC-2023-0011, the beneficiaries appealed the same circuit-court order granting Rule 60(b)(5) relief to the trustees. Walter Bellingrath (deceased) established the charitable Trust in 1950. Bellingrath contributed to the Trust, including the Bellingrath Gardens ("the Gardens"). The trustees and beneficiaries disagreed as to whether the Trust indenture contemplated a subsidy of the Gardens by the Trust: the trustees believed the Gardens were a "purpose" of the Trust requiring perpetual funding; the beneficiaries believed the Gardens were merely an asset of the Trust and subject to closure if not profitable. A 1981 agreement limited the payments or distributions by the Trust for the support of the Gardens. In a 2003 amendment to the 1981 agreement, the beneficiaries gave up their right to request the trustees seek court instructions concerning whether the Gardens should be open or not, and the trustees agreed that they would not increase the payments for the support of the Gardens above 20% of the total annual distribution amount without the unanimous consent of the beneficiaries. In 2017, the trustees contended their ability to maintain the Gardens had been substantially impaired by the funding restraints of the 1981 agreement and the 2003 amendment, and they sought instructions on how the existing funding agreement regarding the Gardens should be revised. After the Alabama Supreme Court released its opinion in "Ex parte Huntingdon College," the trustees immediately moved the circuit court seeking relief from the 2003 judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5), alleging that new circumstances had arisen since the 2003 judgment was entered, rendering prospective application of the 2003 judgment inequitable. In appellate case no. SC-2023-0001, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded the beneficiaries demonstrated a clear legal right to a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to vacate its November 2022, Rule 60(b) order. In appellate case no. SC-2023-0011, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by the beneficiaries concerning that same order. View "Ex parte Huntingdon College, et al." on Justia Law

Michael Ewing, in his capacity as personal representative, appealed a district court’s judgment, amended judgment, and order on motion to show cause. Ewing was the personal representative of the estate of Chiyoko Ewing, his mother. Chiyoko died in 1989 leaving a will devising all of her property in equal shares to her four children: Ewing, Jeffery Ewing, Sherry Ewing, and Nancy Burkhart. At the time of her death, Chiyoko owned a home in Grand Forks as well as various items of personal property located within the home. Following her death, Jeffery lived in and maintained the home, paid the real estate taxes and the mortgage, and made substantial improvements to the home. Jeffery died in 2019. Ewing filed an “Inventory and Appraisement” identifying the property owned by Chiyoko at the time of her death. An evidentiary hearing was held to determine ownership of the property. The court found the siblings agreed they did not want to sell the home to a stranger. The issues of whether oral agreements between Jeffery and the siblings were contested. In March 2021, the district court entered a judgment, finding Jeffrey's estate owned the home. Ewing appealed. The North Dakota Supreme Court dismissed the appeal concluding the administration of the estate was not complete because the personal property was not addressed. In January 2022, another evidentiary hearing was held to address ownership of the items of personal property identified on the inventory list. While it was disputed at the evidentiary hearings, the district court found the siblings already divided the personal property amongst themselves by agreement. The district court entered an amended judgment finding all items of personal property, with two exceptions not at issue here, were assets of Jeffery's estate, and ordered Ewing to return those items to the estate. Jeffrey's estate moved to hold Ewing in contempt for failing to return the ordered items to the estate. This motion was granted, and Ewing appealed, arguing the court erred in finding an oral contract between the parties, mutual assent on all terms of the contract, and partial performance of an oral agreement sufficient to remove it from the statute of frauds. Ewing also argued the district court’s findings of fact regarding ownership of personal property, whether the real property was maintained, responsibility for administration costs, and the award and offset of damages were clearly erroneous. Finding no reversible errors, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Estate of Ewing" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the South Dakota Life and Health Guaranty Association denying the protests brought by the South Dakota Bankers Benefit Plan Trust as to the Association's assessment schedule it established to cover an insolvent insurer's obligations, holding that the Trust was not liable to pay the contested assessments.In 2017, the Association, which covers impaired and insolvent insurers' obligations to their insureds by assessing Association members, assumed liability for the insolvent insurer at issue and established a five-year assessment schedule. The Trust paid three years of the five-year schedule but protested the requirement to pay the remaining two because they were assessed after the insolvent insurer's membership in the Association ended. The Association denied the protests. The South Dakota Division of Insurance's Office of Hearing Examiners reversed, determining that the Association lacked authority to assess the Trust for the last two assessments. The circuit court reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Trust was not liable to pay the Association's 2020 and 2021 assessments. View "S.D. Life & Health Guaranty Ass'n v. S.D. Bankers Benefit Plan Trust" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting an uncontested petition of the trustees of the Marvin S. Robinson Charitable Trust to retroactively modify the trust's terms to maintain its tax-exempt status as a "supporting organization" under the federal tax code, holding that Kan. Stat. Ann. 58a-416 authorized the retroactive modification of the trust.Under In Commissioner v. Estate of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456 (1967), which held that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and federal courts are not bound by decisions of lower state courts on issues of state law but that these entities will defer to decisions of a state's highest court, an order allowing the retroactive modification of a trust's terms to maintain its tax-exempt status is binding on federal tax authorities only if it emanates from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed to review the district court's order in accordance with Bosch and affirmed the district court's judgment granting the petition, holding modification of the trust was proper. View "In re Marvin S. Robinson Charitable Trust" on Justia Law

Richard Biddle and Brian Biddle questioned whether the Chancery Court of Tishomingo County, Mississippi had jurisdiction over their father’s estate. Brian and Richard also appealed the chancery court’s finding that there was no evidence of undue influence by their stepmother. After review, the Mississippi Supreme Court found venue and jurisdiction were proper and that no evidence of undue influence was presented. View "In The Matter of The Estate of Frederick Adams Biddle" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court approved the decision of the First District Court of Appeal affirming the trial court's judgment concluding that this negligence action was untimely filed, holding that Fla. Stat. 733.710(1) extinguished the claim at issue in this case.Petitioners, who were injured in an accident by Thomas Morton, sued Morton's estate for negligently operating the car and his employer, the Lewis Bear Company (LBC), for vicarious liability under the doctrines of respondeat superior and dangerous instrumentality. The trial court ruled (1) section 733.710(1) barred Petitioners' action against the estate because they failed to file their claims within two years of Morton's death; and (2) because the Estate could not be held liable, LBC could not be held vicariously liable. The court of appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Petitioners' claims against the estate were filed beyond section 733.710(1)'s deadline and did not qualify under an exception, they were barred; and (2) the court of appeal correctly held that section 733.710(1)'s statute of non claim exonerated LBC from vicarious liability for Morton's negligence. View "Tsuji v. Fleet" on Justia Law

The estate of Joseph A. Muff brings three conversion claims against Wells Fargo Bank for allegedly failing to detect that Joseph’s stepson, Josh Paige, was stealing money from Joseph by way of fraudulently endorsed checks. After denying the estate’s motion to amend its complaint, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo on all three claims. The estate appealed.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded to the district court. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the estate’s motion to amend its complaint. Further, the court explained that because the Muff Corporate and Muff Farm accounts were not controlled by Wells Fargo, any injury to those accounts under a theory of conversion is not fairly traceable to Wells Fargo. In other words, the estate has not demonstrated a “causal connection” between the “injury”—Josh’s inappropriately removing funds from said accounts—and the “conduct complained of”—Wells Fargo’s allegedly allowing this to take place. Moreover, even assuming the existence of a confidential relationship under Iowa law could give the estate standing to sue, the factual record fails to support the existence of a confidential relationship in the first place. Because the estate has not demonstrated standing, the court wrote that it lacks jurisdiction over Count 3. As with Count 2, the district court should have dismissed the claim instead of entering summary judgment for Wells Fargo. However, unlike Counts 2 and 3, the estate has standing to pursue Count 1 in federal court. View "Larry Muff v. Wells Fargo Bank NA" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the 2008 sale of real property located in Twin Falls, Idaho owned by the partnership White, White & Lawley I (“WWLI”), which sold the Property to White X Three, LLC, for $650,000. In 2009, after White X Three acquired and then substantially renovated the Property, it began to lease the Property. At the time of the sale, Xantha White, then a minor child, and Todd White, her uncle, each held a one-half interest in the White Family Trust. The White Family Trust was a one-third partner in WWLI when it sold the Property. Todd was also a member of White X Three, placing him on both sides of the sale and purchase of the Property. Although he had a conflict of interest in the sale, Todd did not obtain court approval for the sale pursuant to Idaho Code section 68-108(b), nor did he inform Xantha or her mother, who was also Xantha’s conservator, of the sale. Xantha (now known as Xantha Darrow) and the Trustee of the Xantha J. White Trust, Larry Braga, brought suit against Todd and White X Three, asserting that, because Todd did not obtain court approval for the sale of the Property, the sale was void and the Property should be placed in a constructive trust. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Todd and White X Three, concluding that the sale of the Property was not void because Idaho Code section 68-108(b) did not apply. The district court also declined to place the Property in a constructive trust but allowed Xantha's claim of breach of a fiduciary duty to continue. Xantha thereafter moved for an Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) certification to allow her to appeal the partial judgment rendered against her. The district court granted her request, and this appeal followed. The Idaho Supreme Court found the district court erred in determining there was no issue of material fact that Todd complied with the terms of the Trust Indenture in consenting to the sale of the Property, both in general and in terms of the sale price. Further, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in declining to place the Property in a constructive trust. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Darrow v. White" on Justia Law

Robert Houston created a trust which, after amendments, created three separate subtrusts designed to become effective following Robert’s death: a “Marital Trust,” a “Grandchildren’s Trust,” and a “Residuary Trust.” Within the Residuary Trust, Robert created two "for the benefit of" ("FBO") trusts, one for each of Robert’s children, Patricia and Richard. A clause in the FBO Richard Trust granted Richard a testamentary power of appointment to direct how Richard’s share of the Residuary Trust would be distributed if Richard predeceased Robert’s then-wife Lyn. The Marital Trust separately provided that if Richard was not alive when the Marital Trust assets were distributed, Richard’s portion of the Marital Trust would be placed in a “Grandchildren’s Trust” to benefit Richard’s two children from his first marriage (Robert and Lyn’s grandchildren) Ryan Houston and Crystal Siegler. This matter was litigated in Richard’s probate case after his death. Before the magistrate, Richard’s second wife and the personal representative of his estate, Susan Marie Houston, claimed that Richard assigned his interest in Robert’s trusts to her in Richard’s will. Ryan and Crystal argued that because their father, Richard, had not yet inherited from their grandfather’s trusts before he died, Richard could not assign those interests to Susan. The magistrate court agreed with Susan and held that Richard validly assigned his interests to her. Ryan and Crystal, as potential beneficiaries of the Grandchildren’s Trust, appealed that decision to the district court, which reversed the magistrate’s decision. Susan appealed, arguing that the district court erred by converting the intermediate appeal to a trial de novo and by concluding the magistrate court’s interpretation of Robert’s Trust was unreasonable. After its review, the Idaho Supreme Court found no reversible error in the district court's decision and affirmed. View "Houston v. Houston" on Justia Law

Years after their father’s death, Appellees filed a diversity lawsuit against their stepmother, Defendant,and the executor of their father’s estate to adjudicate rights to property owned by their father and Defendant. Before the district court, Appellees argued that their father, H.C. “Dude” Crain, Jr. (Dude), breached a property settlement agreement (PSA) that he entered into with their mother, Marillyn Crain (Marillyn), pursuant to Dude and Marillyn’s divorce. The PSA— which the Logan County, Arkansas Chancery Court ruled was “contractual and nonmodifiable”—required Dude to maintain a will whereby he would leave “one-half of [his] estate” to Appellees. However, at Dude’s death, no such will existed. Instead, Defendant took sole possession of Dude’s separate property and retitled all jointly owned assets in her name. After the ruling that Dude breached the PSA, the district court imposed a constructive trust over all property Dude owned immediately prior to his death. The district court then used the principles set forth in the Restatement (Third) of Restitution to equitably divide the property, valued at nearly $100 million. Defendant appealed.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that although there is an open, ongoing probate action in Arkansas state court, the district court has never attempted to interfere with that court’s possession of any of the property at issue there. Rather, the district court adjudicated the parties’ rights to the property and imposed a constructive trust on it. Therefore, the court held that the probate exception to subject matter jurisdiction does not apply. View "Lisa Crain v. Shirley Crain" on Justia Law