Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was one of first impression regarding the interpretation of Mississippi Code Section 91-5-33, known as the “Slayer Statute.” John Armstrong, a severely mentally ill man, killed Joan Armstrong, his eighty-year-old mother. This fact was not disputed by any party. The Circuit Court determined that John was not competent to stand trial for the murder of Joan, and John was committed to the state hospital at Whitfield. Based on the Slayer Statute, John’s four siblings requested that the devise to John in their mother’s will be declared void. The chancellor granted their motion, and John, through his court-appointed guardian ad litem, appealed. Finding that a hearing to determine John’s mental status at the time of the murder was necessary prior to granting the motion, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "In the Matter of the Estate of Joan Armstrong" on Justia Law

Margaret Oakland appealed a judgment dismissing her objection to the probate of the will of her father, John Gassmann, after a jury found she failed to establish his will was the product of an insane delusion. She also appealed an order denying her motion for a new trial. Oakland was Gassmann's only biological child. Her parents separated and subsequently divorced after Gassmann experienced incidents in which he believed his wife and others were involved in a conspiracy to poison him for his farmland. In the divorce proceeding, a psychiatric and psychological evaluation by a psychiatrist and a clinical psychologist diagnosed Gassmann with a "delusional disorder." After divorcing Oakland's mother, Gassmann began a relationship with Bonnie Bowman, which lasted until his death in February 2012, and he developed a close relationship with Bowman's three children. In December 2011, Gassmann executed a will after he was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Gassmann's estate plan devised certain property to Oakland and his will operated with a revocable living trust to devise his interest in his family's farmland to other individuals, including some of Bowman's children. According to Oakland, Gassmann would have devised his farmland to her but for his insane delusion. According to Bell State Bank & Trust, Gassmann was misdiagnosed with a delusional disorder in the 1993 divorce, but actually suffered from a brain tumor and related acromegaly, and he had the tumor removed in 1995. According to Bell State, Gassmann's symptoms disappeared after the surgery, but his relationship with Oakland remained distant and disconnected because Gassmann did not approve of her decisions about education, employment, and marriage. The district court granted Bell State's motions in limine, but generally informed Oakland the motions could be revisited in the context of the evidence presented at trial, including the parties' experts' opinions about the symptoms of Gassmann's alleged insane delusion. The court advised Oakland it did not then know the extent of the experts' testimony about Gassmann's alleged insane delusion and would allow her to introduce evidence covered by the motions in limine to the extent her experts relied on that evidence to conclude Gassmann was suffering from an insane delusion. A jury returned a verdict finding Oakland failed to establish Gassmann's will was the product of an insane delusion, and the district court thereafter denied her motion for a new trial. Upon further review of Oakland's arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court found no reason to disturb the trial court's order, and affirmed. View "Estate of Gassmann" on Justia Law

The testator in this case prepared a holographic will providing that, if he and his wife died at the same time, specific charities would inherit his estate and providing that his wife would inherit his estate if he predeceased her. The will contained no provision addressing the disposition of the testator’s estate if he lived longer than his wife. The testator’s wife predeceased him. The courts below entered judgment in favor of the heirs at law and against the charities, finding that the testator died intestate. Specifically, the courts excluded extrinsic evidence of the testator’s intent, concluding that the will was unambiguous and failed to provide for the circumstance in which the testator’s wife predeceased him. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that an unambiguous will may be reformed to conform to the testator’s intent if clear and convincing evidence establishes that the will contains a mistake in the expression of the testator’s intent at the time the will was drafted and also establishes the testator’s actual specific intent at the time the will was drafted. Remanded for the trial court’s consideration of extrinsic evidence. View "In re Estate of Duke" on Justia Law

This case was an interlocutory appeal stemming from a law suit by Mautrice Vaughn’s estate and wrongful-death beneficiaries against The Service Companies Inc., (“FSS”), following Vaughn’s fatal heart attack at work. Plaintiffs Vaughn’s estate and wrongful-death beneficiaries sued for false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs alleged Vaughn’s supervisor would not let her leave work to see a doctor despite complaints of severe chest pain and a headache. Following the denial of its Motion for Summary Judgment, the Supreme Court granted FSS leave to bring this interlocutory appeal. FSS argued the circuit court erred by finding a factual dispute existed as to whether FSS had “an actual intent to injure” for purposes of determining whether the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Act exclusively governed plaintiffs’ claims. Upon review, the Supreme Court found plaintiffs’ common-law false-imprisonment claim was insufficient to survive summary judgment because the plaintiffs did not produce evidence of intent to detain. "The plaintiffs may not merely rest on the pleadings and allegations alone." The Court found summary judgment in favor of FSS proper, reversed the trial court’s ruling denying summary judgment, rendered judgment in favor of FSS finally dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint and this action with prejudice. View "The Service Companies, Inc. v. The Estate of Mautrice Vaughn" on Justia Law

This case was an interlocutory appeal stemming from a law suit by Mautrice Vaughn’s estate and wrongful-death beneficiaries against The Service Companies Inc., (“FSS”), following Vaughn’s fatal heart attack at work. Plaintiffs Vaughn’s estate and wrongful-death beneficiaries sued for false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs alleged Vaughn’s supervisor would not let her leave work to see a doctor despite complaints of severe chest pain and a headache. Following the denial of its Motion for Summary Judgment, the Supreme Court granted FSS leave to bring this interlocutory appeal. FSS argued the circuit court erred by finding a factual dispute existed as to whether FSS had “an actual intent to injure” for purposes of determining whether the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Act exclusively governed plaintiffs’ claims. Upon review, the Supreme Court found plaintiffs’ common-law false-imprisonment claim was insufficient to survive summary judgment because the plaintiffs did not produce evidence of intent to detain. "The plaintiffs may not merely rest on the pleadings and allegations alone." The Court found summary judgment in favor of FSS proper, reversed the trial court’s ruling denying summary judgment, rendered judgment in favor of FSS finally dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint and this action with prejudice. View "The Service Companies, Inc. v. The Estate of Mautrice Vaughn" on Justia Law

During his lifetime, Joseph Baumgart created a trust that had been court supervised for thirty-five years. Petitioners, income beneficiaries of the trust with one exception, filed suit against Trustees seeking to reopen previous accountings, remove Trustees, and appoint an independent third-party trustee on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, trust mismanagement, material omission, self-dealing, and other breaches of fiduciary duties. The circuit court entered judgment in favor of Trustees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err when it determined that one trustee’s relationship to the party who leased trust property did not support a charge of self-dealing; (2) did not abuse its discretion when it denied Petitioners’ request to replace Trustees with a neutral, third party trustee; and (3) did not err when it ruled that there were no material omissions in the accountings. View "In re Trust of Baumgart" on Justia Law

Billhartz left more than $20 million to his four children when he died. His estate tax return claimed a deduction for more than $14 million because the amounts paid to the children through a trust were paid pursuant to Billhartz’s contractual obligation under a marital settlement agreement with his first wife. The IRS disallowed the deduction in full and issued a notice of deficiency. The Estate filed suit. Before trial the Estate and the IRS settled; the IRS conceded 52.5% of the claimed deduction. Soon after the settlement, Billhartz’s children sued the Estate in state court, claiming that they were entitled to a larger portion of their father’s fortune and that their prior acceptance of a lesser amount had been obtained fraudulently. The Estate asked the Tax Court to vacate the settlement on the basis that, were the children to prevail, the settlement would bar the Estate from claiming an estate tax refund for any additional amount paid to the children. The Tax Court rejected the Estate’s arguments, and entered a decision reflecting the terms of the settlement agreement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to set aside the settlement. View "Billhartz v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Prior to his death and after consulting a lawyer about divorcing Wife, Husband changed the beneficiary on his term life insurance policy from Wife to Respondents, his parents and sister. Less than four months before Husband’s death, Wife petitioned for dissolution of marriage to Husband. Following Husband’s death, the district court dismissed the dissolution proceeding. Wife subsequently filed suit against Respondents, alleging that Husband’s transfer violated Minn. Stat. 518.58(1)(a), which prohibits the transfer of “marital assets” by a party who contemplates commencing a marriage dissolution. The district court granted summary judgment to Respondents. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that section 518.58(1)(a) did not apply to Wife’s claim because her dissolution proceeding abated upon Husband’s death and the statute applies only in current dissolution proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the language of section 518.58(1)(a) limits the statute’s application to pending dissolution proceedings, the statute did not provide Wife, who was no longer a party to a marital dissolution proceeding, a remedy in this case. View "Nelson v. Nelson" on Justia Law

James Myers, Sr. executed his last will and testament in 2008, and died in 2012. He was survived by his wife and two sons, appellant James Myers, Jr. and appellee Anthony Myers. Appellant was appointed executor by the will. After a motion by Appellee and a hearing, the probate court entered an order on August 1, 2014, finding that Appellant had violated his fiduciary duty in numerous ways, removing him as executor, and appointing a county administrator to replace him. Appellant appealed his removal as executor. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Myers v. Myers" on Justia Law

In this action, the surviving children of the decedent disputed both the informal probate process brought by their stepfather as well as the validity of a 1997 will that devised to the stepfather all of the mineral rights from their mother’s estate. The district court granted summary judgment for the stepfather and concluded that the contestants had not offered sufficient evidence to challenge the decedent’s testamentary capacity or to support their allegations of undue influence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err by permitting the stepfather to initiate probate proceedings on the decedent’s estate fourteen years after her death; and (2) did not err in granting summary judgment to the stepfather on the contestants’ objections. View "In re Estate of Harris" on Justia Law