Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

The United States sued several heirs of A.P., alleging that they were trustees of the trust or received estate property as transferees or beneficiaries and were thus personally liable for estate taxes under 26 U.S.C. Section 6324(a)(2). The United States also alleged that two of the heirs were liable for estate taxes under California state law. The district court ruled in favor of Defendants on the Tax Code claims and in favor of the United States on the state law claims.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment in favor of Defendants, and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the government on its claims for estate taxes and to conduct any further proceedings necessary to determine the amount of each defendant’s liability for unpaid taxes. The panel held that Section 6324(a)(2) imposes personal liability for unpaid estate taxes on the categories of persons listed in the statute who have or receive estate property, either on the date of the decedent’s death or at any time thereafter (as opposed to only on the date of death), subject to the applicable statute of limitations. The panel next held that Defendants were within the categories of persons listed in Section 6324(a) when they had or received estate property and are thus liable for the unpaid estate taxes as trustees and beneficiaries. The panel further held that each Defendant’s liability cannot exceed the value of the estate property at the time of the decedent’s death or the value of that property at the time they received or had it as trustees and beneficiaries. View "USA V. JAMES D. PAULSON, ET AL" on Justia Law

Clifton Capital Group (“Clifton”) was chair of an official committee of unsecured creditors appointed by the Office of the United States Trustee to monitor the activities of debtor East Coast Foods, Inc., manager of Roscoe’s House of Chicken & Waffles. The bankruptcy court appointed Bradley D. Sharp as Chapter 11 trustee. Clifton objected to Sharp’s fee application, but the bankruptcy court awarded the statutory maximum fee. Clifton appealed. The district court concluded that Clifton had standing to appeal, and it remanded. On remand, the bankruptcy court again awarded the statutory maximum. Clifton again appealed, and the bankruptcy court, this time, affirmed.   The Ninth Circuit reversed l reversed the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s enhanced fee award to the trustee. the panel wrote that the Ninth Circuit historically bypassed the Article III inquiry in the bankruptcy context, instead analyzing whether a party is a “person aggrieved” as a principle of prudential standing. The court, however, has returned emphasis to Article III standing following Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014), in which the Supreme Court questioned prudential standing. The panel held that Clifton lacked Article III standing to appeal the fee award because it failed to show that the enhanced fee award would diminish its payment under the bankruptcy plan, and thus it failed to establish an “injury in fact.” The panel also concluded that Clifton did not suffer injury to the timing of its payment because Clifton’s alleged harms were conjectural, and it remained possible that Clifton would be paid within the plan’s initial estimated window. View "IN RE: CLIFTON CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, ET AL V. BRADLEY SHARP" on Justia Law

In its prior decision, the Ninth Circuit rejected Optional’s contention that DAS should be held in contempt for allegedly failing to comply with the May 2013 final judgment that was entered in these forfeiture proceedings. Optional filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) motion to amend the May 2013 judgment to provide that (1) the $12.6 million that DAS had received “is impressed with a constructive trust in favor of Optional” and that (2) “DAS is directed to return that $12,602,824.09, with interest, to Optional’s counsel.” Optional argued that the May 2013 judgment’s failure to specifically award the $12.6 million to Optional was a “scrivener’s error” that should be corrected under Rule 60(a). The district court denied Optional’s Rule 60(a) motion.   The Ninth Circuit granted DAS Corporation’s motion to summarily affirm the district court’s decision. First, the panel denied Optional’s motion to strike DAS’s papers, which alleged that DAS was not a proper party in this matter. The panel held that this contention was frivolous. The panel held that DAS had standing to object to the proposed entry of a subsequent final judgment that, in its view, did not correctly reflect the court’s earlier rulings that finally disposed of the matter as to DAS. The panel granted DAS’s motion for summary affirmance. Finally, the panel held that despite being warned in the prior decision that its prior litigation maneuvers had gone too far, Optional filed this utterly meritless appeal and filed a frivolous motion contesting DAS’s right even to be heard in this appeal. View "OPTIONAL CAPITAL, INC. V. DAS CORPORATION, ET AL" on Justia Law

Plaintiff provided tax- and estate-planning services. Plaintiff filed a claim in Baltimore County Orphans’ Court against Defendant’s Estate for fees allegedly due under contracts. After the Estate disallowed the claim, Plaintiff sued in federal court. After the Estate disallowed the claim, Plaintiff sued in federal court. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the suit was barred by the “probate exception” to federal court jurisdiction.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction Plaintiff’s suit alleging breach of contract. The panel held that none of the Goncalves categories applied to Plaintiff’s suit against the Estate. First, neither party contends that Plaintiff was seeking to annul or probate Bond’s will. Second, this suit does not require the federal courts to administer Defendant’s Estate. Valuing an estate to calculate contract damages is not administering an estate. Third, this suit does not require the federal courts to assume in rem jurisdiction over property in the custody of the probate court. If Plaintiff were to prevail at trial, he would be awarded an in personam judgment for money damages. The panel held that Plaintiff made out a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction. The panel held that the district court erred in holding that Plaintiff’s suit was barred by the probate exception to federal jurisdiction. View "ROGER SILK V. BARON BOND, ET AL" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint alleging that defendant, a superior court judge, violated plaintiff's due process rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff, an heir to the Disney fortune, alleged that defendant violated his rights by appointing a guardian without notice or a hearing, and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by commenting (apparently with questionable factual basis) that plaintiff had Down syndrome.The panel concluded that most of plaintiff's claims are now moot after defendant removed the guardian ad litem and relinquished this case to another judge. The panel also concluded that, while defendant's statement may have been inaccurate and inappropriate, any claim challenging it is barred by judicial immunity. Finally, the district court did not err in denying leave to amend where all of plaintiff's proposed amendments were futile. View "Lund v. Cowan" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit certified the following questions to the Montana Supreme Court: 1. Under Montana law, for a claim that accrued prior to the effective date of Mont. Code Ann. 27-1-308 (2021), may a plaintiff in a survival action recover the reasonable value of medical care and related services when the costs of such care or services are written-off under the provider's charitable care program? 2. For a claim that accrued prior to the effective date of Mont. Code Ann. 27-1-308 (2021), does a charitable care write-off qualify as a collateral source within the meaning of section 27-1-307? If so, does a charitable care write-off qualify for the "gifts or gratuitous contributions" exception under section 27-1-307(1)(c)? View "Gibson v. United States" on Justia Law

Under 26 U.S.C. 2036(a)(1), a grantor's interest in a grantor-retained annuity trust (GRAT) is a sufficient "string" that requires the property interest to be included in the gross estate. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the IRS in an action brought by plaintiff, challenging the inclusion of her mother's GRAT in a gross estate for purposes of the estate tax. The panel explained that the annuity flowing from a GRAT falls within the class intended to be treated as substitutes for wills by section 2036(a)(1). In this case, the panel held that the grantor retains enjoyment of a GRAT and thus it is properly included in the gross estate. Finally, even if plaintiff's challenges to 26 C.F.R. § 20.2036-1(c)(2), which includes the formula the IRS uses to calculate the portion of the property includable under section 2036(a) were not waived, the formula would not apply in this case. View "Badgley v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2003, Dansker obtained an $83,000 home loan to purchase Las Vegas real estate. In 2009, Dansker died. No probate proceedings were instituted. In 2011, the neighborhood HOA began foreclosure proceedings and sold the property to LN. The priority lien-holder was Fannie Mae and the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The district court held that LN had not identified any legal representative of Dansker’s estate, and since no such person was identified and joined, complete diversity existed. The district court dismissed and denied a motion to substitute Dansker’s daughter.The Ninth Circuit vacated. Diversity did exist at the time of removal. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion by denying a motion to substitute, so diversity jurisdiction continued to exist. The lawsuit was against Chase and Dansker. Dansker, being dead, had no legal existence, and, therefore, was not a citizen of any state. Jurisdiction exists where the federal entity is not the record beneficiary on the deed of trust but can prove its property interest through admissible evidence.The Federal Foreclosure Bar, which provides that FHFA's property shall not be subject to foreclosure without FHFA's consent, applies and is fatal to LN’s case on the merits. View "LN Management, LLC Series 5664 Divot V. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A." on Justia Law

Borrower filed suit under federal and state regulations for consumer credit transactions against the lenders, alleging that the lender's loan disclosures were materially inconsistent with the terms of the loan. At issue in this appeal was whether the loan the borrower obtained to make repairs to a personal residence occupied by her niece should be considered a consumer credit transaction. The district court held that, because the borrower did not intend to live in the house, this was not a consumer credit transaction.The Ninth Circuit held that, under applicable statutes and regulations, a trust created by an individual for tax and estate planning purposes, like the one in this case, does not lose all state and federal consumer disclosure protections when it seeks to finance repairs to a personal residence for the trust beneficiary, rather than for the trustee herself. Therefore, the transaction remains a consumer credit transaction. Because the district court erred in construing the statutes in this case too narrowly, the panel reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gilliam v. Levine" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's exercise of diversity jurisdiction over an action stemming from the foreclosure of plaintiff's property. The panel held that the Supreme Court's decision in Navarro Savings Ass'n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 458 (1980), which held that a trustee is a real party to the controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction when he possesses certain customary powers to hold, manage, and dispose of assets for the benefit of others, was still controlling and the Supreme Court's decision in Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1012 (2016), did not upset the holding in Navarro or the panel's precedent. In this case, HSBC and the other defendants were not, like plaintiff, citizens of California and therefore there was complete diversity. Accordingly, the court properly exercised diversity jurisdiction. View "Demarest v. HSBC Bank USA" on Justia Law