Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

The defendant, a former U.S. Coast Guard employee, was convicted by a jury of murdering two co-workers in Alaska. At the time of the government’s collection action, he held approximately $450,000 in a Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) account, a federal retirement savings plan. His wife had a statutory right to a joint and survivor annuity from the account, and federal law generally requires spousal consent for lump-sum withdrawals. Following his conviction, the government sought to collect the entire balance of his TSP account as restitution for the victims’ families.The United States District Court for the District of Alaska initially ordered restitution from the defendant’s retirement and disability income, including his TSP funds, but limited lump-sum withdrawals from the TSP without spousal consent, instead permitting monthly payments. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the restitution order, holding that the district court could not use the All Writs Act to bypass statutory garnishment limits and remanded for a determination of whether the defendant’s benefit streams constituted “earnings” subject to a 25% garnishment cap under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.On remand, the district court issued amended restitution orders authorizing the government to collect the entire TSP account balance as a lump sum. The defendant appealed, arguing that statutory spousal protections limited the government to periodic garnishments. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the government may only cash out a defendant’s TSP account to satisfy a restitution order under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act if the plan’s terms would allow the defendant to do so at the time of the order. Because spousal consent was required and not obtained, the court vacated the restitution orders and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Wells" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between a woman and her daughter regarding the daughter’s alleged misuse of property held in an irrevocable trust for which she served as trustee. The mother initiated a lawsuit in Massachusetts state court, asserting several state-law claims against her daughter and her daughter’s then-husband. Subsequently, the daughter filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona, which triggered an automatic stay of the state court litigation. The bankruptcy court initially granted the mother’s motion for relief from the automatic stay and for permissive abstention, allowing the state court case to proceed. However, after delays in the state court proceedings, the daughter moved for relief from that order, and the bankruptcy court vacated its prior order and reimposed the automatic stay.After the bankruptcy court’s March 2021 order reimposing the stay, the mother filed adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court, which were consolidated and tried. The bankruptcy court ruled in favor of the daughter on all claims and entered final judgment in July 2022. The mother then appealed the March 2021 order to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, arguing that the bankruptcy court erred in granting relief under Rule 60(b)(6) rather than Rule 60(b)(1). The district court concluded that the appeal was timely because it believed the March 2021 order was not immediately appealable, and it affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that, under Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, the bankruptcy court’s March 2021 order was a final, appealable order because it definitively resolved a discrete dispute within the bankruptcy case. Since the mother did not appeal within the required fourteen days, her appeal was untimely, and the district court lacked jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "FANTASIA V. DIODATO" on Justia Law

In 1997, Michael Harris was convicted of eight federal criminal counts related to theft from an employee benefit plan. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison and ordered to pay $646,000 in restitution. He paid only a small fraction of that amount. The government later learned that Harris was a beneficiary of two irrevocable, discretionary trusts established by his parents for his support. In 2015, the government applied for a writ of continuing garnishment for any property distributed to Harris from the trusts. The trustees opposed the application on the ground that Harris had disclaimed his interest in the trusts, with the exception of several checking and investment accounts. The district court granted the writ and ordered the trustees to pay to the United States all current and future amounts distributed to Harris under the trusts. After review, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Harris’s interest in the trusts qualified as property under the federal debt collection procedure that applied in this case. “The government is not attempting to compel distributions from the trusts. However, any current or future distributions from the trusts to Harris shall be subject to the continuing writ of garnishment, until the restitution judgment is satisfied.” View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

The SBA guaranteed a loan between a private bank and Michael Bensal's company, BCI. The private bank filed suit against BCI as the borrower and Bensal as a personal guarantor after BCI defaulted on the loan. The private bank recovered a default judgment and assigned that judgment to the SBA. Bensal later received an inheritance from his father's trust that he did not accept and, instead, disclaimed. Bensal's disclaimer of the inheritance legally passed his trust share to his two children and prevented creditors from accessing his trust share under California law. The SBA filed suit seeking to satisfy the default judgment. The court held that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 28 U.S.C. 3301-3308, displaces California's disclaimer law. In this case, the court concluded that Bensal's disclaimer constitutes a transfer of property under the FDCPA, and California disclaimer law did not operate to prevent the SBA from reaching Bensal's trust share. The court also concluded that the portion of the default judgment based on the second loan, which was guaranteed by the SBA, was a debt within the meaning of the FDCPA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "SBA v. Bensal" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against USB and Recon challenging the complete foreclosure sale of their residential property. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the trustee’s sale was invalid under the Oregon Trust Deed Act (OTDA), ORS 86.770(1), because several assignments of the Trust Deed that took place prior to the 2010 assignment to USB were never recorded. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, holding that ORS 86.770(1) barred plaintiffs' claims. In this case, the only defect the foreclosure process identified by plaintiffs has to do with the content of the notice. The defect is the incorrect listing of the beneficiary in the notice they received. However, plaintiffs do not dispute that: (1) they were in default; (2) they were served in the manner required by ORS 86.740 (requiring, at a minimum, service by certified mail 120 days before the sale) and ORS 86.750 (requiring personal service on grantors who occupy the property 120 days before the sale); (3) they had no financial ability to cure the default and redeem the property; (4) they took no action to challenge the sale prior to it becoming final; and (5) they only challenged the foreclosure sale many months after the foreclosure sale was completed. Therefore, plaintiffs' post-sale claims are barred as their property interests have been terminated and foreclosed pursuant to ORS 86.770(1). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Woods v. U.S. Bank" on Justia Law