Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

Defendant owned real property located at 3546 Multiview Drive in Los Angeles, California (the property). That year, he executed two deeds of trust against the property. Defendant obtained a HELOC from National City Bank, memorialized in an Equity Reserve Agreement and secured by a deed of trust against the property (collectively, the HELOC agreement). Piedmont Capital, L.L.C. (Piedmont)—a debt buyer—purchased the HELOC debt. Piedmont sued Defendant. Following a demurrer to the original complaint sustained with leave to amend, Piedmont filed the operative first amended complaint for (1) breach of contract, (2) money lent, (3) money had and received, and (4) declaratory relief. Although Piedmont alleged that the full amount of the HELOC debt Defendant owed totaled $186,587.26, Piedmont conceded that it was “not seeking to collect on any [amounts] that were already barred by the applicable statute of limitations at the time [the] action was filed.”   The Second Appellate District reversed. At issue is whether the borrower’s duty to make a monthly payment under such a HELOC agreement indivisible from the borrower’s duty to pay the full amount such that the statute of limitations to recover the full amount begins to run upon the first missed monthly payment. The court held that the duties are divisible. The court explained that the HELOC agreement in this case—by setting a fixed maturity date for the full amount and leaving it to the discretion of the lender whether to accelerate that date—necessarily contemplates that a breach as to a monthly payment does not constitute a breach as to the full amount. View "Piedmont Capital Management, L.L.C. v. McElfish" on Justia Law

Appellant Joseph Koepfinger (“Father”) was a nonagenarian and father of several adult children, including Appellee Margaret Koepfinger (“Daughter”). In September 2016, shortly after the death of Father’s wife/Daughter’s mother, Father executed a power of attorney (“POA”), naming Daughter as his agent. The POA gave Daughter the authority to, among other things, create an irrevocable trust for Father; it further provided that Father could revoke the POA but only in writing. Soon after the execution of the POA, tensions began to build between Father and Daughter due to Father’s developing relationship with Madeline Masucci (“Masucci”). In 2017, Father allegedly orally informed Daughter that he revoked the POA and that he executed a new power of attorney, naming his son/Daughter’s brother as his agent. Daughter, however, claimed she was not informed of these events until May of 2018. In the meantime, in April 2018, acting as Father’s agent under the POA, Daughter created an irrevocable trust for Father, placing a substantial amount of his assets into that trust. Daughter named herself as trustee. After Daughter allegedly was informed that Father revoked the POA, she filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment requesting, in relevant part, judicial declarations that: (1) the 2016 POA was not revoked at the time that she created the trust; (2) the creation and funding of the trust was within her scope of authority under the POA; and (3) the trust is valid. The issue this case presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review centered on whether a judicial determination that a power of attorney was void ab initio invalidated an irrevocable trust created by the purported agent under the void power of attorney. The orphans’ court answered this question in the affirmative, but the Superior Court reversed. The Supreme Court held that, when a court concludes that a power of attorney is a nullity, any action taken under the auspices of the power of attorney is likewise a nullity. Consequently, the Court vacated the Superior Court’s judgment and reinstated the orphans’ court’s order. View "In Re: Koepfinger" on Justia Law

In this case regarding the reformation of a trust the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court denying Sally Johnson's request for reimbursement from the trust for her attorney fees and expenses incurred during the underlying litigation, holding that attorney fees were authorized for Johnson efforts to vindicate her father's intent.The trust in this case was created by Fred Peterson, the father of Johnson and Mindy Smith. After Peterson died, Johnson filed petitions seeking court supervision and reformation of one of the trusts, which Smith opposed. The circuit court granted Johnson's request to reform the trust and denied Smith's requests for relief following a trial. Thereafter, Johnson filed a motion for reimbursement of attorney fees and expenses from the trust. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's denial of attorney fees for Johnson's litigation efforts to obtain certain property, holding that attorney fees were authorized under S.D. Codified Laws 15-17-38. View "In re Fred Petersen Living Trust" on Justia Law

Terry Carter and Brenda Ciccone appealed a district court judgment in the informal probate of Allan Froemke’s will. Reginald Froemke, the personal representative of Allan Froemke’s Estate, Terry Carter, and Brenda Ciccone were Allan Froemke’s children. Reginald moved the district court to determine heirs, compute the distribution of the Estate’s shares, determine debts owed by heirs to the Estate, allow the personal representative to sell property, and approve the personal representative’s inventory. The court held an evidentiary hearing and issued findings, an order for judgment, and a judgment. Carter and Ciccone argued the district court lacked jurisdiction over a contract for deed involving Carter. They further argued the court erred in: (1) finding Ciccone owed five thousand dollars to Allan Froemke’s Estate; (2) its evidentiary rulings; (3) failing to address several pending issues; and (4) finding against partitioning property. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Estate of Froemke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed Jean Voelker's appeal of a judgment of the probate court concluding that a document proffered by Voelker as the last will and testament of Theodore Ackley (the Decedent) was not a valid holographic will, holding that this appeal was an improper interlocutory appeal.Joseph Ackley, the Decedent's son, filed an application for informal probate of the Decedent's last will and testament. Thereafter, Voelker filed a petition for formal probate and submitted the petition of a purported copy of the Decedent's holographic will. The probate court granted Ackley's motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding that the document was not a valid holographic will. The court, however, did not render a decision on Voelker's counter-motion for judgment as a matter of law arguing that the document she submitted was valid as a holographic will. Voelker appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the appeal brought from the probate court's interlocutory order, holding that the order was not a final judgment, and therefore, the appeal must be dismissed. View "Estate of Theodore C. Ackley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated a portion of the summary judgment entered by the superior court in this action related to the estate of Patricia Spofford, the mother of Michael Zani and Peter Zani, holding that the Zanis' claim for declaratory judgment was not properly before the superior court.The Zanis brought this lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that Spofford lacked testamentary capacity when she executed her will and claiming that Kathryn Read committed fraud when she swore that Spofford had testamentary capacity at the time of the will's execution. The superior court entered partial summary judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order in part, holding (1) the claim for declaratory judgment was within the probate court's exclusive jurisdiction and was not properly before the superior court; and (2) the Zanis failed to establish a prima case for at least one element of their fraud claim. View "Zani v. Zani" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the judgment of the probate and family court dismissing a petition for formal probate seeking appointment as personal representative, holding that the position of voluntary personal representative charged with administering a small estate pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 190B, 3-1201 constitutes a "prior appointment" within the meaning of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 190B, 3-108's exception to the three-year limit.Petitioner, the voluntary personal representative of the decedent's estate pursuant to section 3-1201, filed a petition for formal probate seeking an appointment as personal representative under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 120B, 3-402. After receiving briefing on the issue of whether the position of voluntary personal representative under section 3-1201 constitutes a prior appointment under section 3-108 such that a subsequent formal petition for appointment under section 3-402 could be filed more than three years after the decedent's death, a probate and family court judge dismissed the petition as untimely. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that Petitioner's petition for formal appointment was timely. View "In re Estate of Slavin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued her brother, the executor of their father's estate, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The district court held that Plaintiff's claims were barred by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“RICO Amendment”), which provides that “no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of [RICO].” 18 U.S.C.1964(c).The Second Circuit reversed, holding that Plaintiff's claims were not barred by the RICO Amendment because the fraud she alleged was not related to the “purchase or sale of securities.” The alleged frauds committed by her brother "only incidentally involved securities, unlike a securities broker who sells client securities in breach of his duty to execute securities transactions in the best interests of the client." View "D'Addario v. D'Addario" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals in this interpleader action reversing the judgment of the probate court denying a motion for the probate judge's recusal in this interpleader action, holding that the probate judge's denial of the recusal motion was appropriate in this case.Before his election to the bench, the probate judge at issue served as an expert witness in an earlier case involving one of the defendants. Based on expert opinions the judge expressed in the prior case that defendant moved for the judge's recusal. The probate court denied the motion, but the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the probate judge's judgment denying the recusal motion, holding that a person of ordinary prudence in the probate judge's position would not find a reasonable basis for questioning his rationality. View "Adams v. Dunavant" on Justia Law

The putative intervenors, the Robert T. Keeler Foundation (the Foundation) and Peter Mithoefer, the fiduciary for the Estate of Robert T. Keeler (the Estate), appealed circuit court orders which: (1) denied their motion to intervene in proceedings brought under the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA) by petitioner, the Trustees of Dartmouth College (Dartmouth), and assented to by respondent, the New Hampshire Director of Charitable Trusts (DCT), to modify the restrictions governing an institutional fund created by a charitable gift pursuant to the last will and testament of Robert T. Keeler; and (2) granted Dartmouth’s assented-to application to modify. On appeal, the putative intervenors argued they had “special interest” standing pursuant to In re Trust of Eddy, 172 N.H. 266, 274-75 (2019), and that granting the assented-to application was error. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the putative intervenors’ motion to intervene for lack of standing and, therefore, necessarily also affirmed the decision to grant the assented-to application. View "In re Robert T. Keeler Maintenance Fund for the Hanover Country Club at Dartmouth College" on Justia Law