Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the county court declining to approve a nonjudicial settlement agreement, holding that the agreement violated a material purpose of the trust, of which Appellant was a beneficiary.Appellant, a beneficiary of a trust created by his father, now deceased, filed this action in the county court seeking approval of a trust settlement agreement entered into between Appellant, his mother, and his sister. Appellant further sought an order requiring compliance with the terms of the agreement. The trial court issued an order rejecting the agreement and finding that the agreement was nonbinding under Neb. Rev. Stat. 30-3811. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the probate court did not err in finding that the agreement altered a material purpose of the trust and in declining to approve the agreement. View "In re Trust Created by McGregor" on Justia Law

Amira Manderson-Saleh was the daughter of an oncology nurse (Mother) who worked at the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) for about 12 years until she retired shortly before her death. Mother earned a pension under rules permitting the employee to designate a beneficiary to receive specified monthly pension benefits upon the employee’s death. When Manderson-Saleh claimed her rights as the designated beneficiary shortly after Mother’s death, The Regents of the University of California (Regents) denied her claim, finding Mother did not properly identify Manderson-Saleh as the contingent beneficiary before her death. Thus, none of the earned pension benefits were paid. Manderson-Saleh filed a complaint against the Regents, alleging breach of contract. Alternatively, she sought a writ of mandate to overturn the Regents’ decision. The Regents demurred only to the contract claim, and the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Proceedings on the mandate petition, the court found Manderson-Saleh was not entitled to relief because the Regents had the right to strictly apply its rule that contingent-annuitant pension benefits were conditioned on the Regents receiving a signed beneficiary-election form before the employee’s death, and the Regents received this form one week after Mother’s death. The court rejected Manderson-Saleh’s different interpretation of the rule and her arguments this rule was satisfied by the Regents receiving Mother’s election worksheet before her death. The court entered a final judgment sustaining the demurrer and denying the mandate petition. Manderson-Saleh challenged both rulings. Finding the trial court properly sustained the demurrer, the Court of Appeal affirmed in part. However, the trial court erred in denying the mandate petition. "The undisputed evidence establishes Mother substantially complied with the Regents’ pension rules and the Regents abused its discretion in failing to consider and apply the substantial compliance doctrine in evaluating Manderson-Saleh’s claim." The matter was remanded with directions for the trial court to grant mandamus relief, and to issue a a writ ordering the Regents to grant Manderson-Saleh's contingent-annuitant pension claim. View "Manderson-Saleh v. Regents of the University of California" on Justia Law

The testator herein executed a notarial testament in 2016, naming her niece as her sole legatee. After the testator’s death in 2018, her widower challenged the testament, contending inter alia that it was rendered invalid by the failure to state in the attestation clause that the testator declared she had signed “at the end” of the testament. The issue this case presented was whether the language of an attestation clause in the 2016 notarial testament, which failed to expressly state that the testator declared or signified that she signed the testament “at the end,” even though it stated the testator signed “on each page,” violated the requirements of La. C.C. art. 1577 and rendered the testament absolutely null under La. C.C. art. 1573. The district court invalidated the testament, finding “the only deviation from La.Civ.Code art. 1577(2) was the absence of the words ‘at the end’ in the attestation clause.” The Louisiana Supreme Court found the attestation clause in this case made use of the exact language set forth in the sample attestation clause in the pre-1980 version of former La. R.S. 9:2442; i.e., that the will was “[s]igned on each page” (as noted, when changed in 1980 to its current wording, the difference was denominated by its authors as a technical and/or semantic change). The question for the Supreme Court reduced to whether such a semantic departure from Article 1577’s current language could be considered substantially similar to the requisite attestation ‒ that the testator “signed at the end and on each other separate page.” The Court recognized that these phrases had slightly different connotations, as once the testator signs “at the end” of the testamentary recitations he was not required to sign after the attestation clause even if it concluded on a subsequent page; the testator was only required to sign on each of the other separate pages that precede his signature at the end of the testamentary recitations. Here, the declaration the testator signed "on each page" of a testament necessarily established that the testament had been signed on every page, including the page containing the end of the testament. The appellate and district court decisions were reversed, and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Succession of Peggy Blackwell Bruce" on Justia Law

The testator herein executed two notarial testaments: one in 2013 and another in 2015 (which purported to revoke all prior testaments). The 2013 testament divided the testator’s property equally among his three adult children (Conway, Jeffrey, and Laura). The 2015 testament, executed under La. C.C. art. 1579 (for a testator who is unable to read regardless of whether he is able to sign his name), divided the testator’s property between only two of his children (Jeffrey and Laura), excluding the third child (Conway). After the testator’s death in 2018, Conway challenged the validity of the 2015 testament on several bases, in response to his siblings’ attempt to probate the testament. The issue raised by this case was whether the language of an attestation clause in the 2015 testament, which failed to expressly state that the testator declared or signified that he signed the testament “at the end of the testament and on each other separate page,” in accordance with the requirements of La. C.C. art. 1579, rendered the testament absolutely null under La. C.C. art. 1573. The Louisiana Supreme Court concluded the attestation clause here stated simply that the testator "signed" the testament, which could only establish the testator signed the eight-page testament once, rather than "at the end" and "on each other separate page," as required by La. C.C. art. 1579(2). "An attestation clause that fails to state that the testament was signed at the end and on each other separate page fails to inform the testator and witnesses that the testator has a responsibility to sign every page of a multiple-page testament, and “signing one’s name on each page of the will undoubtedly offers more heightened protection from surreptitious replacement of pages." The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and reinstated the trial court's judgment, which invalidated the 2015 testament. View "Succession of James Conway Liner, III" on Justia Law

A party receiving notice who fails to participate in court-ordered mediation is bound by the result. Plaintiff, the trustee of decedent's trust, petitioned the probate court to determine the trust beneficiaries. After the probate court ordered the matter to mediation, the potential beneficiaries received notice of the mediation, but some did not participate. The participating parties subsequently reached a settlement that excluded the nonparticipating parties as beneficiaries, and the probate court approved the settlement. In this appeal, the nonparticipating parties challenged the probate court's approval of the settlement.The Court of Appeal held that, by failing to participate in the mediation, the Pacific parties waived their right to an evidentiary hearing. Furthermore, the Pacific parties were not entitled to a determination of factual issues, such as the decedent's intent, and cannot raise such issues for the first time on appeal. The court rejected the Pacific parties' contention that the trustee failed in his duty to deal impartially with all beneficiaries where the Pacific parties' failure to participate was not the fault of the trustee. The court also rejected the Pacific parties' contention that the trustee breached fiduciary duties and failed to keep them reasonably informed. Finally, the court concluded that there was no extrinsic fraud, and that the probate court should decide the issue of attorney fees. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment order. View "Breslin v. Breslin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed as modified as modified the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court denying Maria Molloy's motion to intervene in Pamela Spera's proceeding seeking enforcement of a divorce decree that dissolved her marriage to Rodney Miller, holding that Molloy had a right to intervene as to the valuation of Miller's retirement accounts.In the enforcement proceeding, Spera sought to have the retirement accounts she and Miller each held divided according to the terms of the divorce decree. Before Miller passed away, he named his four daughters - including K.M.M., the child he had with Molloy - as beneficiaries on his retirement accounts. Molloy sought to intervene in Spera's enforcement proceeding as a matter of right to assert K.M.M.'s interest in Miller's retirement accounts. The district court denied intervention. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the four requirements under Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.01 for intervention were met. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that Molloy's right to intervene was limited specifically to the valuation of Miller's retirement accounts. View "Miller v. Molloy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court concluding that the executor of the Estate of Thelma J. Taylor converted estate property and ordering the executor to repay double the converted property's value, as provided by Kan. Stat. Ann. 59-1704, holding that the statute's plain language does not limit its application.The court of appeals upheld the conversion finding but held that section 59-1704 did not apply because the property was taken before the executor was appointed to administer the estate. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals on the issue subject to review, holding (1) nothing in section 59-1704 limits its application only to circumstances when the decedent's funds are taken by a court-appointed estate fiduciary after probate proceedings begin; and (2) the district court properly assessed the double penalty against the executor under the plain language of the statute. View "In re Estate of Taylor" on Justia Law

In this estate settlement action, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the county court's dismissal of Matthew Larson's objection to a proposed schedule of distribution, holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction to address Matthew's assigned errors.Cindy Svoboda, in her capacity as personal representative of the estate of Blain Larson, filed a petition for complete settlement of the estate asking the county court to enter an order approving her final accounting and directing that she distribute assets of the estate in accordance with a proposed schedule of distribution. Matthew, Blain's son, objected to the proposed schedule of distribution, alleging that the schedule of distribution failed properly to apportion inheritance taxes. The county court dismissed the objection. Matthew appealed, assigning that the county court erred in dismissing his objection. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Matthew did not appeal from a final order, and therefore, this Court lacked jurisdiction. View "In re Estate of Larson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the county court disallowing a claim filed by the Nebraska Department of Revenue for unpaid lifetime Nebraska income taxes and remanded the cause for further proceedings, holding that the county court failed to impose the burden of proof regarding diligent investigation and inquiry on the personal representative of the decedent's estate.The Department filed a claim with Miranda Loder, the personal representative of the decedent's estate, seeking individual income taxes for the three years preceding the decedent's death. Miranda disallowed the claim, claiming that it was untimely. The Department filed a petition with the county court for allowance of the claim, arguing that because it did not receive notice in compliance with Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-520.02 and 30-2483 it retained the right to file a claim within three years of the decedent's death under Neb. Rev. Stat. 30-2485(a)(2). At issue was whether the Department qualified as a known creditor, to whom Miranda was required to mail notice. The county court sustained Miranda's disallowance. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the court's decision did not conform to the law because the court did not examine whether Miranda established that the Department's potential claim was not ascertainable by reasonably diligent inquiry. View "In re Estate of Loder" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Plaintiffs' complaint regarding the distribution of Dr. Lloyd Griffith's estate, holding that Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the claims asserted.Dr. Griffith was survived by his three adult children - two daughters (collectively, Plaintiffs) and a son, Charles - and his second wife, Mary Cate. Charles, acting as the personal representative of Dr. Griffith's estate, requested to probate his father's 2010 will after initially probating a 2008 will. The circuit court ordered that the 2010 be entered into probate. In 2018, Plaintiffs filed a complaint listing Mary Cate and Charles as defendants, alleging, among other claims, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of the estate, constructive fraud, and conversion. The circuit court dismissed the claims with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs' factual allegations were insufficient to establish standing. View "Platt v. Griffith" on Justia Law