Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that the Virginia Uniform Arbitration Act, Va. Code 8.01-581.01 to -.016 (VUAA), and the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1-16 (FAA), do not compel enforcement of an arbitration clause in a trust.The decedent created an inter vivos irrevocable trust that was divided into three shares for his children and grandchildren. The trust contained an unambiguous arbitration clause. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, the trust's trustee, alleging breach of duty. Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a trust is neither a contract nor an agreement that can be enforced against a beneficiary; and (2) therefore, neither the VUAA nor the FAA compel arbitration. View "Boyle v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in this probate case involving an international will dispute impacting the probate of he estate of Matoula Papadopouli (the decedent), holding that the superior court did not err in affirming the order of probate court.The decedent held dual citizenship in the United States and Greece. The administratrix of the estate filed a miscellaneous petition requesting an order granting her full access to the estate's accounts in order to pay expenses related to a will contest in Greece. The probate court granted the motion. The superior court affirmed after applying Rhode Island law to the case, holding that Rhode Island law authorized the use of the estate's assets to fulfill the will contest in Greece. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err in allowing the administratrix to use the estate's assets to fund the estate's defense to the Greek litigation. View "Smile of the Child v. Estate of Papadopouli" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the order of the trial judge denying Barbara Howard's motion to dismiss a petition seeking to partition two adjacent parcels of land in Foster that Howard Dunn and Howard owned as joint tenants with a right of survivorship, holding that Howard's motion to dismiss should have been granted.During the partition proceedings, Dunn died. Howard subsequently filed her motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that Dunn's death vested full title in her as the surviving joint tenant. The trial judge denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding (1) the partition proceedings and the acceptance of a buyer's offer to purchase the property did not sever the joint tenancy or terminate Howard's right of survivorship; (2) Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 241, 26 does not confer standing on the heirs of a joint tenant to continue a partition action; and (3) where a party lacks standing under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 241, 1, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 241, 25 does not permit the land court to retain jurisdiction over the defective suit. View "Battle v. Howard" on Justia Law

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to address whether the law in effect at the time a testamentary trust came into existence allowed the settlor of the trust to provide for substitution of beneficiaries when the original beneficiary died testate, but without descendants. The Supreme Court concluded the law permitted such substitution. View "Succession of Dean Bradley" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Dejaun Kendrick, individually and on behalf of her minor son, sued the estate of the deceased, Anthony Michael Barre, seeking filiation and child support. The estate filed exceptions of prescription, no cause of action, and no right of action. The trial court granted the exceptions, but the court of appeal reversed. Finding an initial child support claim cannot be brought after the father’s death, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and reinstated the trial court’s ruling granting the exception of no cause of action. View "Kendrick v. Estate of Michael Barre, et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the district court erred by disqualifying a district court judge because her impartiality could reasonably be questioned after she reviewed notes, produced in discovery, that the Supreme Court later determined to be privileged, holding that the district court erred by disqualifying Judge Sturman.Lawrence and Heidi Canarelli, along with attorney Edward Lubbers, served as former trustees of an irrevocable trust. Lubbers, who later became sole trustee, entered into a purchase agreement to sell the trust's ownership in the former trustees' business entities. Scott Canarelli petitioned to compel Lubbers to provide an accounting related to the purchase agreement. Lubbers died before Scott could depose Lubbers. Because the former trustees had disclosed documents containing Lubbers' notes, they attempted to claw back the documents. Judge Sturman allowed Scott to retain portions of the notes, but the Supreme Court held that the notes were privileged and undiscoverable. The former trustees moved to disqualify Judge Sturman as biased because she reviewed the privileged notes. The motion was denied. The Supreme Court granted writ relief, holding that the district court improperly disqualified Judge Sturman where the record did not show that Judge Sturman's review of the notes created bias or prejudice against the former trustees that would prevent fair judgment. View "Canarelli v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in this interlocutory appeal of a decision of the circuit court overruling Appellants' demurrer and allowing Appellees to proceed with their claims, holding that the circuit court erred.Appellees brought this action against Margaret's Future Trust, the Estate of Walter, Jr. and another trust seeking an accounting of each party's assets, restitution, and the imposition of a constructive construct on the trusts' assets based on Walter, Jr.'s alleged fraudulent conduct and breach of fiduciary duty as trustee of Walter, Sr.'s and Margaret's estates. The circuit court subsequently allowed Appellees to amend their complaint to add claims relating to the arms-length sale by their mother, Margaret, of her minority interest in Hurley, LLC, in 2006 and to joint the relevant members of Hurley, LLC as defendants. In this interlocutory appeal, Appellants argued that the circuit court improperly conferred standing on Appellees to pursue claims challenging and seeking to "unwind" the 2006 Hurley Transaction. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision on these issues, dismissed Appellees' claims relating to the Hurley Transaction, and remanded for further proceedings, holding that Appellees lacked standing to bring the claims regarding the Hurley Transaction. View "Kittrell v. Fowler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment to Michael McDill on his request that the district court confirm that his brother, Thomas McDill, was excluded as a beneficiary under their deceased mother's trust and dismissing Thomas's counterclaims, holding that there was no error.Michael, as a trustee of the trust, filed a petition for instructions asking the district court to confirm that Thomas was disinherited from taking under the trust because he violated the trust's no-contest provision. In response, Thomas asserted various counterclaims and requested that Michael be removed as trustee. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Michael, dismissed Thomas's counterclaims, and denied Thomas's motion to amend. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the district court's judgment. View "McDill v. McDill" on Justia Law

Luke Beard executed a will on February 13, 1987. The will named Luke’s daughter, Diane Christmas, as executrix, and it left all of Luke’s property, including thirty-two acres of land, to his grandson, Antonio Christmas. Despite being named as executrix, Diane did not know about the will. Luke died on February 26, 2001. After Luke’s death, Diane and Antonio became estranged. Having no knowledge of the will, Diane petitioned to open an estate in 2002. Antonio was unaware of the estate proceeding. At some point in 2003, Antonio found Luke’s will in a closet in Luke’s house. Antonio did not tell his mother about the will and took no action regarding the will. In 2014, Diane filed a second petition to open an estate. As with the first petition, Antonio was unaware of the estate proceeding. According to Antonio, an order was later entered closing the estate and vesting title of the thirty-two acres of land to Diane. In 2017, Good Hope, Inc., entered the land and started to cut timber on the property. When Antonio attempted to stop them, he learned of the estate actions filed by Diane. Seventeen years after Luke’s death and fifteen years after he found the will, Antonio petitioned to probate Luke’s will. Diane contested the will and filed her objection to Antonio’s petition to probate. The matter went to trial before the chancery court. The issue this case presented for the Mississippi Supreme Court's review was what evidence was required to prove the execution of a will when both the testator and the subscribing witnesses are deceased. The Court found that in the absence of the testimony of at least one subscribing witness, a proponent of a will must prove the handwriting of the testator and at least two subscribing witnesses. Because there was proof of only one of the subscribing witnesses’ signatures, the chancellor did not err by dismissing the petition to probate the purported will. View "In the Matter of the Last Will and Testament of Luke Beard" on Justia Law

Robert Louis Dill appealed a circuit court judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of Douglas Dill in Douglas's action contesting the purported will of Walter Dill, Jr. Walter and his wife Alva purchased a house across the street from Douglas (his son) and his wife Peggy, and Douglas' children. After Alva died, Douglas and Peggy assisted Walter with things such as preparing his meals and taking him to his appointments. Robert, Walter's brother, did not visit with Walter much before Alva's death because Alva did not care for Robert. However, after Alva died, Robert started visiting Walter and spending time with him on a frequent basis. Robert began taking Walter to certain places and appointments. By 2008, Walter did not really trust anyone but Robert and that Robert had "spread his wings over Walter." Peggy further stated that Robert had started turning Walter against Douglas. Walter had approximately $80,000 in a joint checking account with Douglas that was intended to help pay for Walter's future care. Douglas and Peggy discovered that Walter had written approximately $40,000 worth of checks from the joint account to Robert, one of which had been used to purchase Robert a vehicle. Thereafter, Douglas removed the $39,000 from the joint account and placed the money in an account solely in his name to prevent Walter from giving more money to Robert. Douglas and Robert separately petitioned an Alabama Probate Court seeking letters of guardianship and conservatorship over Walter. It appeared from the record that Walter once had a will that made Douglas the primary beneficiary of his estate. However, on December 11, 2013, Walter executed a new will ("the 2013 will") naming Robert as the executor and sole beneficiary of his estate. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed judgment in favor of Douglas, finding the 2013 will had been prepared by an attorney who had previously represented Robert, and Robert accompanied Walter to the attorney's office on the day the will was executed. Approximately one month after the 2013 will was executed, the probate court entered an order finding that Walter lacked the mental capacity to handle his affairs and appointed a permanent conservator for Walter. "Based on the foregoing, we cannot say that the circuit court erred in entering a judgment on the jury's verdict in favor of Douglas in the will contest." View "Dill v. Dill" on Justia Law