Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

The decedent died intestate in 2021, leaving no close relatives. The decedent had a stepdaughter, Karen Ellis, who claimed she was equitably adopted by the decedent and sought to inherit his estate. Ellis alleged a father-daughter relationship with the decedent, who had been involved in her life since she was four years old. She claimed the decedent treated her as his daughter, referred to her children as his grandchildren, and made statements indicating she would inherit his estate.The Orphans’ Court for Montgomery County denied Ellis’s initial petition but later allowed her to refile. The court denied a motion for summary judgment by the decedent’s intestate heirs and transmitted seven issues to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for a jury trial, including whether Ellis was equitably adopted.The Appellate Court of Maryland vacated the Orphans’ Court’s order, holding that a claimant must prove that the decedent intended to treat them as their own child and that the intent element is not necessarily an intent to adopt pursuant to the adoption statute. The court concluded that the orphans’ court should not have transmitted six of the seven issues to the circuit court, as they were factual in nature.The Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the Appellate Court’s judgment, holding that a claimant may establish the right to inherit under the doctrine of equitable adoption by demonstrating clear and convincing proof of the decedent’s intent to adopt and that the decedent acted in accord with that intent. The case was remanded to the Orphans’ Court for Montgomery County for further proceedings based on this standard. View "In re: Estate of Schappell" on Justia Law

Charlene Monfore petitioned for guardianship and conservatorship over her mother, Gerda Flyte, who suffers from dementia. Gerda’s son, Roger Flyte, objected and requested to be appointed instead. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court found it was not in Gerda’s best interests to appoint either Charlene or Roger and instead appointed Black Hills Advocate, LLC (BHA), a for-profit corporation. Charlene appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by not appointing her and lacked statutory authority to appoint a for-profit organization.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Fall River County, South Dakota, initially appointed Charlene as temporary guardian and conservator. Roger objected, raising concerns about Gerda’s care under Charlene, including medical neglect and financial mismanagement. After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the court found both Charlene and Roger unsuitable due to various concerns, including Charlene’s failure to provide necessary medical care and financial mismanagement, and Roger’s financial irresponsibility and anger issues. The court appointed BHA as guardian and conservator.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint Charlene, given the evidence of her inadequate care and financial mismanagement. However, the Supreme Court found that SDCL 29A-5-110 does not authorize the appointment of for-profit entities as guardians or conservators, except for qualified banks or trust companies as conservators. Therefore, the appointment of BHA was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The court also awarded Roger one-half of his requested appellate attorney fees. View "Guardianship And Conservatorship Of Flyte" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Mary C. Sutphin, filed a complaint alleging statutory violations of the Uniform Trust Code and breaches of fiduciary duties against several defendants, including A. David Abrams and others. The complaint was amended twice, with the second amended complaint containing sixteen counts related to the management of Lewis Chevrolet and interference with the plaintiff’s inheritance. During discovery, the plaintiff received over ten thousand documents, which led to the filing of the second amended complaint. The defendants sought detailed information about the factual basis of the plaintiff’s allegations through interrogatories, but the plaintiff’s responses were deemed insufficient, leading to a motion to compel and subsequent orders for the plaintiff to supplement her responses.The Circuit Court of Raleigh County referred the discovery disputes to a discovery commissioner, who recommended that the plaintiff supplement her responses with specific references to the complaint and discovery materials. The plaintiff complied, but the defendants were still unsatisfied and sought to depose the plaintiff’s counsel, arguing that the plaintiff had relied on her counsel for the factual basis of her claims. The discovery commissioner denied the motion to compel the deposition of the plaintiff’s counsel, applying the Shelton test, which requires showing that no other means exist to obtain the information, the information is relevant and non-privileged, and the information is crucial to the case. The circuit court partially rejected the discovery commissioner’s decision and ordered the deposition of the plaintiff’s counsel.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found that the circuit court committed a clear error of law by not properly applying the Shelton test. The court held that the information sought could be obtained from other sources and that the deposition would invade the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Consequently, the court granted the writ of prohibition, preventing the deposition of the plaintiff’s counsel. View "State ex rel. Sutphin v. Poling" on Justia Law

Nancy Walker executed a will in 2011, leaving personal property to her stepchildren and sister, Beatrice Land, and specific real property to Beatrice. In 2020, Nancy executed a new will and a deed, leaving the same property to her stepgranddaughter, Magen Grimes, and Magen's husband, Joseph Culpepper. Nancy died three weeks later. Beatrice contested the validity of the 2020 will and deed, claiming Nancy lacked testamentary capacity and was under undue influence.The Russell Circuit Court held a jury trial, which found the 2020 will and deed invalid. The court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict and denied post-judgment motions from the proponents of the 2020 will and deed. Beatrice's request for costs incurred in challenging the will was also denied.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case. It affirmed the circuit court's judgment invalidating the 2020 will, finding sufficient evidence that Nancy lacked testamentary capacity. However, it reversed the judgment invalidating the 2020 deed, citing jurisdictional limitations. The court also reversed the denial of Beatrice's request for costs and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the amount of costs and attorney fees, and who should pay them. View "Boykin v. Land" on Justia Law

Leslie J. Knoles (Decedent) and Ruth Catello co-owned a property as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. After Decedent's death in 2020, the property's title became disputed. Decedent's four siblings and Catello were involved in probate proceedings regarding the property and other estate assets. Concurrently, the siblings filed a civil action in 2022 to partition the property. The trial court identified the property owners as Catello and Decedent’s estate and ordered a partition by sale. Catello appealed, arguing that the siblings lacked standing to sue for partition because ownership of the property was still undetermined in probate court.The Superior Court of San Diego County entered an interlocutory judgment for partition by sale, identifying the property owners and ordering the sale proceeds to be distributed accordingly. Catello did not challenge the siblings' standing during the trial court proceedings. The siblings filed a cross-claim for partition by sale, asserting that the 2020 quitclaim deed was valid and that they would inherit Decedent's interest in the property. The trial court ruled in favor of the siblings, leading to Catello's appeal.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 the probate court had not yet determined the ownership of the property. The court emphasized that clear title is required to bring a partition action, and the ongoing probate proceedings meant that the siblings' ownership interest was not confirmed. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the uncertainty of ownership precluded the siblings from establishing the necessary standing for their partition claim. View "Amundson v. Catello" on Justia Law

Dorothy Golobe died in 1992, leaving behind a three-story building in New York. Her nephew, John Golobe, became the estate's administrator, believing his father, Zangwill Golobe, was Dorothy's only surviving heir. An attorney testified that Dorothy's other brother, Yale Golobe, had predeceased her. Surrogate's Court found Zangwill to be the sole distributee, and he renounced his interest in favor of John, who maintained the property. However, Yale was actually alive at Dorothy's death and should have inherited half of the estate. John discovered this error in 2018 and claimed sole ownership through adverse possession. Yale's successor, the Emil Kraus Revocable Trust, counterclaimed for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.Supreme Court granted summary judgment to John, declaring him the sole owner and dismissing the Trust's counterclaims. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that John had established adverse possession and dismissing the fraud and fiduciary duty claims due to lack of evidence of scienter or reliance and no extraordinary duty to confirm a distributee's death.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The court held that John had acquired sole ownership through adverse possession, as his possession was hostile, under a claim of right, and open and notorious. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Trust's counterclaims, finding no triable issue of fact regarding fraud or breach of fiduciary duty. The court emphasized that a cotenant may obtain full ownership even when neither party is aware of the co-tenancy, provided the statutory period and other adverse possession requirements are met. View "Golobe v Mielnicki" on Justia Law

Yolanda M. Currier and James M. Currier were married in 2000, and Yolanda filed for divorce in 2017. The divorce judgment, entered in 2019, awarded Yolanda sole parental rights and responsibilities for their three children, child support, spousal support, and half the value of James’s employee stock plan and 401(k) account. James was found to have committed economic misconduct by cashing in stocks and taking loans against his 401(k) during the divorce proceedings.The District Court (South Paris) found James in contempt multiple times for failing to comply with the divorce judgment. In 2023, Yolanda filed a fifth motion for contempt, asserting that James failed to provide an accounting of his stocks and did not file a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the division of his 401(k) account. The court found James not in contempt regarding the stock division, concluding that Yolanda did not prove James owned stocks. However, the court found James in contempt regarding the 401(k) account, valuing it at $7,000 and awarding Yolanda $3,500.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and found that the District Court erred in its findings. The Supreme Judicial Court concluded that Yolanda met her burden of proving James’s noncompliance with the stock accounting and division order. The court also found that the District Court erred in valuing the 401(k) account at $7,000, as this figure excluded the value of loans taken against the account, contrary to the divorce judgment’s provisions.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, noting James’s pattern of noncompliance and suggesting the consideration of punitive sanctions if his contumacious conduct continues. View "Currier v. Currier" on Justia Law

Two business partners, Anthony Bertucci and Eugene Watkins, developed low-income housing projects through various entities. Bertucci provided funding, while Watkins managed the projects. Watkins managed the entities' funds through a separate account, which led to concerns about mismanagement and personal use of funds. After Bertucci's health declined, his son Christopher, acting under power of attorney, discovered potential mismanagement and removed Watkins from his roles. This led to a legal dispute involving claims of breach of fiduciary duty and other violations.The probate court granted summary judgment in favor of Watkins on all claims. Bertucci, represented by his son Christopher as executor of his estate, appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas reversed the summary judgment on some claims, finding fact issues regarding fiduciary duties and limitations, but affirmed the judgment on the derivative claims, concluding that Bertucci failed to adequately brief those claims.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Bertucci waived his appeal on the derivative claims due to inadequate briefing. The Supreme Court also found that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that fact issues precluded summary judgment on Bertucci's individual breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims. However, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that fact issues precluded summary judgment on Watkins's limitations defense and correctly resolved disputes regarding an expert report and the Dead Man's Rule. The Supreme Court reinstated the probate court's summary judgment on the individual breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to address the derivative claims. View "Bertucci v. Watkins" on Justia Law

Sidney and Brian Harchelroad, officers of Harchelroad Motors, Inc. (HMI), obtained loans from Waypoint Bank and Western States Bank, signing promissory notes individually and as officers. Sidney and Brian were accommodation parties, meaning they did not personally benefit from the loan proceeds. Sidney died in 2018, and his wife, Carol, was appointed as personal representative of his estate. Waypoint and Western filed claims in Sidney’s estate for unpaid promissory notes, which were allowed. Brian also filed a contingent claim against Sidney’s estate, stating he would seek contribution if he paid more than his share of the debts. Brian died in 2019, and his wife, Michelle, was appointed as personal representative of his estate.Waypoint and Western filed claims in Brian’s estate. Michelle, individually, paid the banks and took assignments of their rights. She then sought contribution from Sidney’s estate for one-half of the amounts paid. The county court largely granted her request, finding that the notes were not extinguished by her payments or the assignments.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the notes were not extinguished by the judgments against Brian or by Michelle’s payments, as the agreements with the banks were assignments, not payments in full. The court affirmed the county court’s decision, requiring Sidney’s estate to pay Michelle, individually, $459,559.51 for the Waypoint note and $291,263.20 for the Western note, and $300,000 to Brian’s estate for his payments to Western. The court found that Michelle, as an assignee, had the right to seek contribution from Sidney’s estate, and that the proportionate share was correctly determined as one-half, given the joint and several liability of Sidney and Brian. View "In re Estate of Harchelroad" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, two grandchildren and a friend of the decedent, Wisniewski, filed a lawsuit against the defendant attorney, alleging professional negligence and breach of contract in the preparation of Wisniewski's will. They claimed that Wisniewski intended for his TD Ameritrade account to be distributed equally among five individuals, including the plaintiffs, but due to the defendant's failure to ensure the account's beneficiary designation was changed, the entire account was distributed to Wisniewski's daughter, the sole designated beneficiary.The trial court dismissed the professional negligence claim, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing because Connecticut law only allows third-party beneficiaries to sue attorneys for errors in drafting or executing a will, not for failing to change a beneficiary designation. The court later dismissed the breach of contract claim, finding it functionally identical to the dismissed negligence claim.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case. It agreed with the trial court that the plaintiffs did not allege a drafting error in the will. However, it concluded that public policy supports holding attorneys liable for failing to advise clients about the need to change beneficiary designations to effectuate their estate plans. The court held that the plaintiffs had standing to sue for professional negligence based on the defendant's failure to advise Wisniewski about the implications of the beneficiary designation on his estate plan. The court did not recognize a duty for attorneys to ensure that clients actually change beneficiary designations.The court affirmed the dismissal of the breach of contract claim, agreeing that the allegations did not sound in breach of contract but were essentially the same as the dismissed negligence claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the professional negligence claim related to the failure to advise. View "Wisniewski v. Palermino" on Justia Law