Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, Eva D. and Lee J. Kelly, appealed the district court's finding that they exercised undue influence over Robert Lee McNeel and invalidated the trust and will in which Mr. McNeel had named Ms. Kelly as one of two beneficiaries in place of his son. Plaintiffs also appealed the district court's grant, in a separate proceeding, to remove Ms. Kelly as Mr. McNeel's guardian and conservator and appointment of the son to replace her. At issue was whether the district court's finding of undue influence and removal of plaintiff as guardian and conservator of Mr. McNeel's trust was clearly erroneous. The court held that, in light of the circumstances, the district court did not err in its order invalidating the 2005 trust amendment and will and that the district court had the authority to remove plaintiff as guardian conservator upon determining that she was not acting in the best interest of Mr. McNeel.

Appellant Paul Mathewson, grandson of decedent Helen Nielsen, challenges the distribution of her estate. Ms. Nielsen died testate in May, 2008; her daughter Ember Mathewson (Daughter) was named executrix. Appellant is Daughter's son and the decedent's grandson. Daughter and two other siblings were named heirs, and were to receive equal parts of the estate. Prior to a final distribution, Daughter and one of the siblings died. Daughter and her husband had executed a community property agreement in which "upon the death of either [Daughter or her husband], title to all community property â¦[will] vest immediately in fee simple in the survivor." Following Daughter's death, Appellant and some of his other family members filed an application for decree of distribution to Ms. Nielsen's estate; Appellant's father claimed Daughter's share of the Nielsen estate under the terms of the community agreement. Appellant claimed he was the rightful heir to his mother's share of his grandmother's estate since the Nielsen estate had not been probated or distributed at the time of Daughter's death. The circuit court found that the Daughter's share of the Nielsen estate was subject to the community property agreement, ruling in favor of Appellant's father. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that Appellant's request for review was essentially an attempt to re-litigate issues already decided by the lower court. Furthermore, the Court noted Appellant missed the deadline to file his request for review. On the basis that his request was untimely, the Court found it had no jurisdiction to hear Appellant's arguments, and dismissed his appeal.