Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

Edwin Moreau worked at the W.R. Grace mine from 1963 until 1992. Edwin died of asbestos-related lung cancer in 2009. In 2013, Transportation Insurance, W.R. Grace’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, accepted liability for Edwin’s medical expenses. Both the Libby Medical Plan, an entity established and funded by W.R. Grace to pay the medical care expenses of employees who were injured by asbestos exposure, and W.R. Grace refused to accept reimbursement from Transportation for the medical expenses the Plan had paid on Edwin’s behalf. Cristita Moreau, as personal representative of Edwin’s estate, demanded that the amount of reimbursement declined by the Plan and W.R. Grace should be paid either to Edwin’s Estate or to a charity selected by the Estate. After Transportation refused to pay the money, Moreau filed this petition to the Workers’ Compensation Court (WCC) to resolve the dispute. The WCC denied the petition, determining that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter because Moreau lacked standing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Estate had standing and was entitled to have its petition determined on the merits. Remanded. View "Moreau v. Transp. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Kuznar left Poland and moved to the United States, leaving his wife, Emilia, and son Thomas. In the U.S., he married Anna without divorcing Emilia. Anna collected spousal pension benefits after his 1995 death. In 1997, Thomas, now living in the U.S., opened probate in Illinois state court, on his mother’s behalf. The probate court ordered Anna to pay Emilia the amount she had collected from Mitchell’s pension fund. Emilia died before judgment entered; the Appellate Court remanded. In 2011 Thomas opened administration of Emilia’s estate and renewed his motion for summary judgment in the 1997 case, on behalf of Emilia’s estate. Anna filed notice of removal. Thomas filed notice of voluntary dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Anna then argued that she had removed the 1997 case, not the 2011 case, and that no dismissal could be valid unless it dismissed the 1997 case entirely. The district judge reasoned that Anna’s submissions indicated that she was attempting to remove a “new action” filed in the 2011 probate case. The Seventh Circuit held that the dismissal was effective. Thomas was entitled to accept Anna’s “doubtful” characterization of his motion and voluntarily dismiss the supposed “new action” rather than dispute Anna’s shifting characterization of his filings. View "Kuznar v. Kuznar" on Justia Law

Before his death in 2011, Donald Hyde executed a will and then a revocable trust that he funded with real estate and a brokerage account containing stock. Under the trust, the stock was to be distributed to charities upon Hyde’s death. However, in a post-trust codicil, Hyde bequeathed the stock to his siblings. Before his death, Hyde also deeded trust real estate to siblings and loaned his sister money that he obtained from the trust brokerage account. After the circuit court supervising the trust made its findings and determinations, and charities and Hyde’s sister appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in determining (1) the post-trust codicil did not modify the trust; (2) the trust should not be reformed to distribute the stock to the siblings; (3) the loan to the sister should be repaid to Hyde’s estate rather than his trust; (4) the deeds conveying property to Hyde’s siblings were validly delivered before Hyde’s death; and (5) the charities failed to meet their burden of proving that some of Hyde’s dispositions were the result of undue influence. View "In re Donald Hyde Trust" on Justia Law

J.G.S. was a 90-year-old retired attorney and owned a number of multi-family rental properties. In 2008, J.G.S. suffered a stroke. In 2013, the Petitioners in this proceeding, J.G.S.'s four children, C.C., C.S., J.F.S., and J.S., became significantly concerned J.G.S. was no longer able to care for himself or his financial affairs. Petitioners were specifically concerned that J.G.S. was no longer able to maintain and repair the rental properties, was failing to collect rent from some tenants, and had gifted three multi-family rental properties to a tenant who had managed the properties for him. Petitioners filed an ex parte petition in the district court for the appointment of a temporary guardian and temporary conservator, seeking an immediate emergency guardianship and conservatorship. The court appointed a temporary guardian and a temporary conservator. Shortly thereafter, Petitioners filed a petition seeking a permanent or indefinite guardianship and conservatorship. On that same day, J.G.S. was personally served with a notice of the hearing on the petition for appointment of a guardian and conservator, with a copy of the temporary petition attached as an exhibit to the notice. The district court held a hearing on the temporary order, found that an emergency guardianship was not necessary, and vacated the temporary order. The court appointed a visitor and psychologist to evaluate J.G.S. In October 2013, the court held a three-day hearing on Petitioners' request for a permanent or indefinite guardianship and conservatorship. The court ultimately held that while a guardianship was not necessary, there was clear and convincing evidence of a need for a conservatorship to manage J.G.S.'s financial affairs. The court appointed a conservator for an indefinite period. J.G.S. argued to the Supreme Court that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because of a failure of service of process. J.G.S. claimed that Petitioners did not personally serve him with the petition seeking permanent or indefinite appointment of a guardian and conservator, or with any of the supporting affidavits, which J.G.S. contended the law required. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court had personal jurisdiction over J.G.S. and the court did not clearly err in finding clear and convincing evidence supported the appointment of a conservator. As such, the Court affirmed. View "Guardianship & Conservatorship of J.G.S." on Justia Law

J.G.S. was a 90-year-old retired attorney and owned a number of multi-family rental properties. In 2008, J.G.S. suffered a stroke. In 2013, the Petitioners in this proceeding, J.G.S.'s four children, C.C., C.S., J.F.S., and J.S., became significantly concerned J.G.S. was no longer able to care for himself or his financial affairs. Petitioners were specifically concerned that J.G.S. was no longer able to maintain and repair the rental properties, was failing to collect rent from some tenants, and had gifted three multi-family rental properties to a tenant who had managed the properties for him. Petitioners filed an ex parte petition in the district court for the appointment of a temporary guardian and temporary conservator, seeking an immediate emergency guardianship and conservatorship. The court appointed a temporary guardian and a temporary conservator. Shortly thereafter, Petitioners filed a petition seeking a permanent or indefinite guardianship and conservatorship. On that same day, J.G.S. was personally served with a notice of the hearing on the petition for appointment of a guardian and conservator, with a copy of the temporary petition attached as an exhibit to the notice. The district court held a hearing on the temporary order, found that an emergency guardianship was not necessary, and vacated the temporary order. The court appointed a visitor and psychologist to evaluate J.G.S. In October 2013, the court held a three-day hearing on Petitioners' request for a permanent or indefinite guardianship and conservatorship. The court ultimately held that while a guardianship was not necessary, there was clear and convincing evidence of a need for a conservatorship to manage J.G.S.'s financial affairs. The court appointed a conservator for an indefinite period. J.G.S. argued to the Supreme Court that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because of a failure of service of process. J.G.S. claimed that Petitioners did not personally serve him with the petition seeking permanent or indefinite appointment of a guardian and conservator, or with any of the supporting affidavits, which J.G.S. contended the law required. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court had personal jurisdiction over J.G.S. and the court did not clearly err in finding clear and convincing evidence supported the appointment of a conservator. As such, the Court affirmed.View "Guardianship & Conservatorship of J.G.S." on Justia Law

In 2008, William Corrigan filed for a divorce from his wife, Mary Helen Corrigan. The district court issued temporary restraining order (TRO) that prohibited William and Mary from changing the beneficiaries of any insurance. However, the TRO was never served on Mary. In 2012, William amended the terms of his IRA account with State Farm, removing Mary as beneficiary and naming his adult children as primary beneficiaries. After William died, Mary alerted State Farm that she would make an elective share claim on the IRA. Litigation ensued. The district court granted summary judgment to the adult children, concluding that the TRO was invalid. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because William did not serve Mary with the TRO in the three years allotted for service, the TRO was rendered ineffective, and therefore, William was not prohibited from amending his IRA; and (2) as a result, the district court did not err in finding that the adult children were the primary beneficiaries of the IRA account. View "In re Estate of Corrigan" on Justia Law

Bell sued attorney Ruben and his firm, alleging that they negligently and fraudulently mismanaged her trust, causing a loss of $34 million. Before arbitration, Ruben filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Bell filed an adversary complaint opposing discharge of Ruben’s fraud-based debt to her, 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(A), (4). The bankruptcy judge granted Ruben a discharge of his other debts, but not of that fraud debt. Ruben’s liability insurance did not cover fraud. Bell settled her negligence claims against Ruben and all claims against the other defendants in arbitration. The arbitration panel ruled, with respect to the fraud claim, that “damages proven to be attributable to the actions of [Ruben] have been compensated,” but ordered Ruben to pay administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) totaling $21,200.00 and that compensation and expenses of the arbitrators, advanced by Bell, totaling $150,304.54 would be borne by Ruben. AAA rules, which governed the arbitration, provide that expenses of arbitration “shall be borne equally” unless the parties agree otherwise or the arbitrator assesses expenses against specified parties. Ruben refused to pay. The bankruptcy judge entered summary judgment in favor of Ruben. The district court reversed, in favor of Bell. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Ruben v. Bell" on Justia Law

After the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs determined Evans was no longer competent to manage his veterans’ benefits, it appointed his daughter as the federal fiduciary. The VA later terminated her appointment and appointed the Greenfield Banking Company. Evans’s wife and daughter filed suit asserting breach of fiduciary duty and conversion by the Bank and sought creation of a constructive trust. The complaint alleges that the Bank complied with the terms of its obligations to the VA as federal fiduciary but that doing so meant it breached its fiduciary duty to Evans. The complaint did not claim misuse of funds, mismanagement depriving him of the use of any funds, embezzlement, or the like. The daughter was apparently not fully reimbursed for expenditures she made on behalf of Evans while pursuing a guardianship in state court. Evans died in 2012. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that the complaint is really a challenge to a federal fiduciary appointment and to veteran benefits distribution and, as such, not within the court’s jurisdiction. View "Stump v. Greenfield Banking Co," on Justia Law

C.B. Grant, the administrator of the estate of Phillip Frazier, filed a wrongful-death action. Mitarazza Davis, Frazier's widow, moved to intervene in the lawsuit, alleging that Grant had secured his appointment as administrator of the estate through fraud and requesting that the wrongful-death action be stayed pending the resolution of the dispute over the administration of the estate by the Lowndes Probate Court. The circuit court declared Grant's appointment as administrator of the estate void and declared Davis to be the rightful party to serve as administrator of the estate. The court stayed the wrongful-death action pending the Probate Court's appointment of Davis as the administrator of Frazier's estate. Grant petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to vacate its order and to lift the stay. After review, the Supreme Court granted the petition in part and denied it in part: the petition was granted insofar as it challenged the circuit court's purported exercise of jurisdiction over matters related to the appointment of an administrator and the administration of Frazier's estate. To the extent the circuit court's order declared the letters of administration issued to Grant to be void and declared Davis the proper administrator of Frazier's estate, the Supreme Court ordered the circuit court to vacate that part of its order. As to Grant's request for relief from the stay, however, the Supreme Court denied the petition. View "Ex parte C.B. Grant, as admin. of the Estate of Phillip Frazier" on Justia Law

Margaret Pedro was domiciled in Nevada and died in 1997. In March 1999, one of Pedro's children, Jack Scheeler, filed an application in the North Dakota district court, seeking informal probate of Margaret Pedro's will and appointment as personal representative, in addition to filing Pedro's 1990 Last Will and Testament. Letters testamentary were issued on March 18, 1999, appointing Jack Scheeler as the Estate's personal representative. No subsequent inventory or closing documents were filed. In August 2011, Daniel Scheeler, another child, petitioned the district court for a hearing and for an order restraining the personal representative. Daniel Scheeler thereafter retained counsel and joined in a motion with Jack Scheeler and Denan Pedro, additional siblings, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the proper interpretation of the will. The parties stipulated to waive a hearing, and in July 2012 the court entered an order and judgment construing the will and concluding Denan Pedro inherited the entire Estate. No appeal was taken from that judgment. Appearing pro se, Daniel Scheeler continued to file voluminous documents in the district court, including letters with attachments, a purported inventory and appraisement and purported supplementary inventory information with attachments. In November 2013, Daniel Scheeler moved the district court to order the Estate's personal representative to file a supplementary inventory. The personal representative responded by arguing Daniel Scheeler's motion did not comply with North Dakota court rules, was barred by res judicata and was frivolous. In December, the district court denied Daniel Scheeler's motion, holding his filing failed to meet basic requirements for a motion under North Dakota law, was frivolous and was an attempt to relitigate an issue previously decided. The court also awarded attorney fees for the personal representative having to defend the frivolous motion and barred Daniel Scheeler from filing anything further in the case. Daniel Scheeler argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the district court erred in denying his request to order the personal representative to file a supplementary inventory for the Estate. The Court concluded the dispositive issue was whether Daniel Scheeler established any legal grounds for the relief sought in his motion. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Estate of Pedro" on Justia Law