Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

Defendant Paul Wentzlaff, an insurance agent, stole thousands of dollars from Harvey Severson, an elderly man who asked Defendant to help manage his financial affairs. Plaintiff Donald Hass, as personal representative for Severson’s estate, sued Defendant and two insurance companies who appointed Defendant as an agent, North American Company for Life and Health Insurance (North American) and Allianz Life Insurance of North America (Allianz). Hass and North American each moved for summary judgment and Allianz joined North American’s motion. After a hearing, the circuit court denied Plaintiff's motion and granted the insurance companies’ motion. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the insurance companies were vicariously liable for Defendant's acts. Based on undisputed material facts on the record in this case, the Supreme Court found that Defendant Wentzlaff was not acting within the scope of his employment when he stole money from Severson, and thus, as a matter of law, North American and Allianz were not vicariously liable for his acts. The Court affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurance companies. View "Hass v. Wentzlaff" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Waterford Investment Services, Inc. appealed the district court’s ruling that it must arbitrate certain claims that a group of investors brought before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). The investors alleged in their FINRA claims that they received bad advice from their financial advisor, George Gilbert. The investors named Gilbert, his current investment firm, Waterford, and his prior firm, Community Bankers Securities, LLC (CBS), among others as parties to the arbitration. In response, Waterford filed this suit asking a federal district court to enjoin the arbitration proceedings and enter a declaratory judgment that Waterford need not arbitrate the claims. The district court, adopting the recommendations of a magistrate judge, concluded that because Gilbert was an "associated person" of Waterford during the events in question, Waterford must arbitrate the investors' claims. Upon review of the matter, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding that Gilbert was inextricably an "associated person" with Waterford, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the magistrate judge's opinion. View "Waterford Investment Services v. Bosco" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether a district court acted outside the scope of its jurisdiction when it issued an order requiring a guardian to provide all financial records related to a court-ordered accounting and to make restitution to a guardianship account. The circuit court denied a petition for writ of prohibition prohibiting the district judge from enforcing his orders. The court of appeals reversed the circuit court and remanded the case back for entry of a writ of prohibition, opining that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the charge was one of mismanagement of funds and beyond the scope of the court's powers. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the appellate court's order requiring the circuit court to enter a writ of prohibition was improper, as the district court is granted exclusive jurisdiction to manage and settle guardianship accounts and was acting soundly within its jurisdiction in this case. View "Dist. Court (Karem) v. Bryant" on Justia Law

Husband died intestate in 2008. A woman, claiming to be his wife, was appointed as administrator of the estate. Petitioner, who resides in the Peoples’ Republic of China, alleged that she was the surviving spouse and sought an elective share. The petition was dismissed. According to petitioner, the first stipulation of dismissal was based upon counsel’s belief that the parties had reached a settlement, and the second stipulation of dismissal was to allow parallel litigation in Pennsylvania. Unable to resolve that litigation, petitioner filed the instant action in May 2011. In her belated response to a motion to dismiss, petitioner alleged that she was not informed of husband’s death for several weeks, and was not timely notified of appointment of the administrator. The court declined to set aside the dismissal. No petition for an extension of time for election was filed during the sixth-month period. The first petition was filed more than five months after the limitations period had expired, and the current petition was filed nearly two years after the limitations period had expired. View "in Re: Ren Xiong Estate" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action challenging 62 Pa. Stat. 1414, which was enacted to regulate special needs trusts. The comprehensive Medicaid eligibility rules enacted by Congress generally mandate that trusts be counted as assets of those seeking Medicaid, but exempt special needs trusts, which are intended to provide disabled individuals with necessities and comforts not covered by Medicaid. Plaintiffs allege Section 1414 is preempted by 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(4). The district court held that all but one of the challenged provisions of Section 1414 was preempted, finding that plaintiffs had a private right of action under both Section 1983 and the Supremacy Clause. The court also held that Section 1414 was severable, certified a class, and appointed class counsel. The Third Circuit affirmed in part, agreeing that the case is justiciable and that plaintiffs have a private right of action. Section 1414's 50% repayment provision, "special needs" provision, expenditure provision, and age restriction are all preempted by federal law. The enforcement provision of Section 1414, however, when used to enforce provisions not otherwise preempted, is a reasonable exercise of the Commonwealth's retained authority to regulate trusts. View "Lewis v. Alexander" on Justia Law

These cases arose from a declaratory judgment action filed by a trustee seeking to determine the effect of an in terrorem clause in an express trust. At issue was whether appeals that involved the proper interpretation of a trust provision came within the court's general appellate jurisdiction over "equity cases," Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III(2), because the resolution of that legal issue would affect the administration of the trust. Consistent with the court's precedent on this question, the court concluded that such cases did not come within its equity jurisdiction. View "Durham v. Durham; Callaway v. Willard" on Justia Law

Normally, if a partner contributes property, his basis in the partnership increases, and, when the partnership assumes a partner’s liability, his basis decreases. A Son-of-BOSS transaction recognizes acquisition (here, short-sale proceeds) and disregards acquisition of offsetting liability (obligation to close out the short-sale), to generate tax loss or reduce gain from sale of an asset. In their first such transaction, plaintiffs used partnerships to convert $66 million in taxable gain anticipated from stock sales into capital losses. Their partnership interests were held by tax-exempt charitable remainder unitrusts at the time of sale so that gain would escape taxation. The CRUTs terminated thereafter and assets were distributed to plaintiffs, purportedly tax free. The IRS determined that transfers to the CRUTs were shams to be disregarded; imposed basis and capital gain/loss adjustments, and alternative penalties; and asserted that the transactions did not increase amounts at risk under I.R.C. 465. Plaintiffs conceded capital gain and loss adjustments, but otherwise challenged the determinations. The Claims Court dismissed the determination that trust transfers were shams, believing it lacked jurisdiction; entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs on the ground that their concession to adjustments rendered valuation misstatement penalties moot; granted the government summary judgment on penalties for negligence, substantial under-statement, and failure to act in good faith; and imposed a penalty. The Federal Circuit reversed the dismissal, vacated summary judgment for plaintiff, and held that plaintiffs’ appeal was premature. View "Alpha I, L.P. v. United States" on Justia Law

Taxpayer appealed a decision of the Tax Court that disallowed her deduction for donating a "facade conservation easement" to the National Architectural Trust on the ground that there was no "qualified appraisal" within the meaning of Treasury Regulation 1.170A-13(c)(3). The court concluded that the Trust's agreement to accept the gift of the easement was not a transfer of anything of value to the taxpayer and thus did not constitute a quid pro quo for the gift of the cash. The court also concluded that the appraisal satisfied the regulatory specifications and vacated the Tax Court's judgment, remanding for further proceedings. View "Scheidelman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, both individually and as the trustee of several trusts that she directed, asserted claims against defendants arising out of her decision to invest in Lord Baltimore. Defendants moved to dismiss all of the claims asserted against them. The court held that defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, except to plaintiff's claim that there was an implied covenant in the Shareholders' Agreement requiring that repurchase proposals be presented to and considered by the Board, which was not dismissed. View "Blaustein v. Lord Baltimore Capital Corp." on Justia Law

In this matter the Supreme Court considered whether a decedent's will that directed "all my just debts be paid as soon as conveniently possible after the date of my death" obligated the decedent's estate to pay the mortgage on two parcels of real property devised to Respondents. The circuit court determined that the "just debts" clause required the decedent's estate to pay the mortgage on the two properties and deliver an unencumbered interest in the two properties to Respondents. Petitioner, the executrix of the will, appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the doctrine of exoneration was applicable to this case, and under the doctrine, Respondents were entitled to receive an unencumbered interest in the two devised properties. View "Estate of Fussell v. Fortney " on Justia Law