Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

Andrew G. Horwath, Sr. died in 1991. His widow, Marjorie Horwath, later moved to Minnesota to live with their daughter, Mary Jaworski. A Minnesota court entered a conservatorship order for Marjorie, appointing Mary "Conservator of the Person" and Michael Horwath (Andrew and Marjorie's son and Mary's brother) "Conservator of the Estate." Marjorie died in 2001, and Michael died in 2007. Michael served for a time as personal representative of Andrew's estate and applied to do so for Marjorie's estate too, but was not formally appointed. Another Horwath daughter, Sue Streets, became the personal representative for the estates of Andrew, Marjorie, and Michael. In November 2008 Mary presented claims against all three estates, alleging that her then-deceased brother Michael had not always made a court-ordered monthly payment to her for their mother's care and that Michael had not reimbursed her for improvements she made to her house while caring for Marjorie. Mary also claimed Michael had improperly dissipated property and mismanaged both parents' estates. Sue issued a disallowance o f these claims in December 2008, asserting that the claims were unfounded and time-barred under both the non-claim statute and the applicable statutes of limitations. Mary petitioned for an extension of time to initiate proceedings on her disallowed claims. Sue opposed the motion, arguing that no extension could be allowed because all of Mary's claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. The superior court denied Mary's extension petition on grounds that her claims were barred by applicable statutes of limitations. Mary unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration, The court did not respond to the motion for reconsideration, and Mary subsequently appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that although Mary's statement of issues on appeal asserted the superior court erred by denying her requested extension because she "exceeded the period under the statute of limitations," thereby causing a "forfeiture" of her claims, the legal arguments in Mary's opening brief did not address this issue. The issue before the superior court was neither the merits of Mary's claims nor the merits of personal representative Sue 's disallowance of Mary's claims for failure to comply with the non-claim statute. The issue before the court was Mary's requested extension of time to contest Sue's disallowance of Mary's claims. The court denied the extension because the applicable statutes of limitations already had run on all of Mary's claims. Having failed to argue the statute of limitations issues in the superior court or in her opening brief to the Supreme Court, Mary was deemed to have waived these issues. The superior court's decision was therefore affirmed. View "Jaworski v. Estates of Horwath" on Justia Law

This was an appeal from the approval of a class action settlement agreement related to the Secretary of the Interior's breach of duty to account for funds held in trust for individual Native Americans. The court concluded that the record failed to confirm either the existence of a purported intra-class conflict or a violation of due process. Rather, the record confirmed that the two plaintiff classes possess the necessary commonality and adequate representation to warrant certification, and that the district court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in certifying the two plaintiff classes in the settlement or in approving the terms of the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Rule 23(e). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment approving the class settlement agreement. View "Cobell, et al. v. Salazar, et al." on Justia Law

The Dorothy J. Pierce Family Mineral Trust appealed a judgment that dismissed the Trust's claim against Richard and Brenda Jorgenson for reformation of two warranty deeds. Because the parties' claims to quiet title in the disputed mineral acres were not fully adjudicated and no N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification appeared in the record, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as premature. View "Dorothy J. Pierce Family Mineral Trust v. Jorgenson" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Donna Kraft, the personal representative for the estate of Emma Boehm, appeals a trial court's order recognizing Interested Party-Appellee Alicia Rae Ramos as a devisee under the estate of Emma Boehm. Alicia Rae Ramos was born to Kelly McCormick and William Boehm on August 15, 1979. McCormick and William Boehm lived together with Ramos for approximately one year. They did not marry, and their relationship eventually deteriorated to the point where it ended. In July 1983, McCormick married Bernard Schumacher. In November 1983, Schumacher adopted Ramos, and William Boehm's parental rights were terminated. After the termination of his parental rights, William Boehm ceased seeing or spending time with Ramos. When Ramos was fifteen, she and William Boehm were reintroduced and, through shared meals and time spent on his family's farm, became reacquainted with one another. When Ramos graduated from high school, William Boehm attended the ceremony. In February 1995, Emma Boehm, William Boehm's mother, executed a Last Will and Testament. In her will, Emma Boehm divided the residuary of her estate into seven shares, one for each of her six living children and one for the children of a deceased son. Emma Boehm died in 2010 but was predeceased by William Boehm who died in 2000. Following Emma Boehm's death, her Last Will and Testament was admitted to informal probate, and Ramos moved for determination of her status with respect to Emma Boehm's will. The trial court found William Boehm functioned as a parent to Ramos. Kraft argued the trial court erred as a matter of law by relying on laws governing intestate succession to interpret Emma Boehm's will. More specifically, Kraft argued the court erred when it concluded Ramos was included in "issue" under Emma Boehm's will and held Ramos was a devisee entitled to take from Emma Boehm's estate. Ramos argued the trial court correctly construed Emma Boehm's will. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Ramos was a proper devisee under Emma Boehm's will and affirmed the trial court's May 17, 2011, order and its February 17, 2012, opinion on the motion to reconsider in which it concluded William Boehm functioned as a parent to Ramos. View "Estate of Boehm" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, as the administratrix of Brenda Shelton's estate, appealed the district court's dismissal of her civil action against several public officials and health officials. The complaint alleged shortcomings in the way medical professionals at a state mental health facility responded after Brenda hanged herself while a patient at the facility. The district court dismissed all federal claims with prejudice and dismissed the state law claims without prejudice, electing not to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims. The court held that the circumstances did not trigger duties related to involuntary commitment nor did they give rise to a constitutional-level of care. The court also held that a claim based upon an improper medical treatment decision could not be brought pursuant to either the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., or the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. View "Shelton v. AR Dept. of Human Services, et al." on Justia Law

The two appeals consolidated for resolution in this case both arose from an attempt by John C. Harrison, acting as personal representative for the estate of Nolan G. Thorsteinson and trustee of The Margie (Dotts) M. Thorsteinson Trust, to avoid an order declaring abandoned a disputed 1.04 c.f.s. interest in the Mexican Ditch. Harrison appealed directly to the Supreme Court adverse rulings of the Water Court in the two cases. With regard to Harrison's Application for a Change of Water Right, the water court granted the Engineers' motion to dismiss at the close of Harrison's case, finding that he was required but failed, to establish the historic use of the right as to which he sought a change in the point of diversion. With regard to Harrison's protest to the inclusion of the interests he claimed in the Mexican Ditch on the Division Engineer's decennial abandonment list, the water court granted the Engineer's motion for abandonment, as a stipulated remedy for Harrison's failure to succeed in his change application. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that because Harrison neither proved historic use of the right for which he sought a change nor was excepted from the requirement that he do so as a precondition of changing its point of diversion; and because denying a change of water right for failing to prove the historic use of the right did not amount to an unconstitutional taking of property, the water court's dismissal of Harrison's application was affirmed. But because, Harrison did not stipulate to an order of abandonment as the consequence of failing to succeed in his change application, only as the consequence of failing to timely file an application reflecting historic use, the water court's order granting the Engineers' motion for abandonment was reversed. View "Thorsteinson v. Simpson" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Lynne DiGaetano, Michael John DiGaetano, Christopher D. DiGaetano, Scott M. DiGaetano, and Shauna Arsenault, appealed a superior court order that granted the motion in limine of Defendant, John M. DiGaetano, to exclude parol evidence. Defendant cross-appealed a prior order of the same court that denied his motion to strike Plaintiffs’ notice of appeal. The matter arose from the distribution of trust proceeds from the death of the parties' parents-grandparents. Paragraph eleven of this trust provided that the trust “may be revoked in its entirety or amended from time to time by an instrument in writing executed by the said Donors jointly or by a surviving Donor.” The patriarch died in 2002, and the matriarch amended the trust in 2003 to establish Defendant as the sole trustee and beneficiary. Following his mother's death in 2006, Defendant sold the trust assets and collected the proceeds. Seeking to establish his right to the proceeds, Defendant petitioned the probate court who concluded that the 2003 amended trust was enforceable, and ruled in Defendant's favor. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that they were entitled to a jury trial on the issues of whether the original trust was a contractual "common plan" and whether the matriarch breached that contract when she amended it. Defendant moved to strike Plaintiffs' notice of appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the superior court's order denying Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiffs' notice of appeal: The Court was not persuaded by Plaintiffs' contention that the original trust was a contract, the existence of which would be evidence to reform the family trust and to impose a constructive trust in their favor. Plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial. The Court therefore reversed the trial court's order denying Defendant's motion and remanded the case to dismiss Plaintiffs' appeal. View "DiGaetano v. DiGaetano " on Justia Law

Pamela Ruttenberg, Harold Ruttenberg's widow, and two of the Ruttenberg's three children, Warren Ruttenberg and Jodi Ruttenberg Benck appealed a final judgment of the probate court that granted the petition of Karl B. Friedman and Daniel H. Markstein III, the coexecutors of Harold's estate, for final settlement of the estate. Ruttenberg's third child, Don-Allen Ruttenberg, who had worked with his father in the family business, Just For Feet, Inc., and who was involved in civil litigation and criminal prosecution surrounding Just For Feet, did not object to the coexecutors' administration and settlement of his father's estate. Upon review of the record of the nine-day trial and the considerable documentary evidence, the Supreme Court held that there was substantial evidence to support the probate court's decision. The Court concluded that the probate court did not exceed its discretion. Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the probate court was affirmed. View "Ruttenberg v. Friedman" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the proceeds from the sale of timber, which was harvested from land that was specifically devised in a will, should be considered part of the decedent's residuary estate. Appellant, the executor of decedent's will, requested that the circuit court decide whether an ademption had occurred after Appellee Gary Morgan conveyed by timber deed several trees on decedent's property and transferred a portion of the proceeds to Nancy Morgan. The court declined to rule on the issue of ademption and found that the proceeds from the sale of timber became part of the residuary estate. The Supreme Court reversed, thereby adopting the intention theory as the law in Arkansas, holding that if the property that is the subject of a specific devise is sold by an attorney in fact at a time when the testator is incompetent, and the testator does not regain testamentary capacity before his or her death, an ademption of the specific devise does not take place as to the unexpended, identifiable proceeds of the sale. Remanded. View "Rodgers v. Rodgers" on Justia Law

William Watson Eldridge III (Father) created two trusts for the ultimate benefit of his sons, William Watson Eldridge IV (Bill) and Thomas Hadley Eldridge (Tom). In 1973, Father formed a revocable trust (R-trust), for which he was the trustee. When Mother died in 1992, Father amended the R-trust to name Bill and Tom as co-successor trustees. In 1999, Father formed an irrevocable Qualified Personal Residence Trust (QPRT), for which he was trustee, and placed in it a Florida condominium (Florida condo) that he owned. Under the terms of the QPRT, Father could sell the Florida condo, but use of the proceeds was limited to the purchase of a replacement home to be placed in the trust, or the purchase of a separate annuity for the benefit of the trust. The trust document named Sons as co-successor trustees of the QPRT. The terms of the QPRT also provided that if Father died within eight years after its formation, the trust assets were to automatically transfer to the R-trust, of which Sons were beneficiaries. If Father was still living eight years after the formation of the QPRT, the trust assets were to be distributed equally among Sons. Father married Frances Eldridge (Wife) in 2001. Acting as trustee of the QPRT trust, Father sold the Florida condo and used the sales proceeds to buy a Hilton Head home. Instead of titling the Hilton Head home in the name of the QPRT trust, as required under the terms of the trust, he titled it in the name of the R-Trust. In 2003, Father transferred the Hilton Head home from the R-trust to himself and Wife, individually, as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. Father died in 2006, and under the right of survivorship, Wife's sole interest in the Hilton Head home became fully vested. Subsequently, she transferred title in the home to herself as trustee of the Frances Ulmer Eldridge Revocable Trust, of which Wife's children are the beneficiaries at her death. Bill and Tom, as trustees of the R-trust, filed suit against Wife and her trust, claiming that the Hilton Head home was held in either a constructive or a resulting trust for the benefit of the R-trust, and requesting the court to transfer the Hilton Head home to the R-Trust. After a bench trial, the master-in-equity issued judgment in favor of Wife. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Sons did not have an adequate legal remedy to cure Father's breach of trust. The law of the case was that a resulting trust arose over the Hilton Head home for the benefit of the R-Trust. Because the Sons filed a claim against Wife and her trust just over a year after Father's death, the Court held that laches could not apply to bar the Sons' claim. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded with direction that Respondents execute all documents necessary to re-transfer the Hilton Head home to the R-Trust. View "Eldridge v. Eldridge" on Justia Law