Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

Angelia Taylor, as personal representative of the Estate of Willie Latham, appealed the denial by operation of law of her Rule 59(e), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion seeking to vacate an arbitration award entered in favor of Methodist Home for the Aging d/b/a Fair Haven and its administrator, Maria Ephraim (collectively, "Fair Haven"). While a resident, Latham fell and broke her hip. Latham was eventually transported to a hospital for surgery, and she died a few days later. In November 2019, Taylor, as the personal representative of Latham's estate, filed a wrongful-death action under the Alabama Medical Liability Act of 1987. In December 2019, Fair Haven moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement Latham had signed. The parties filed a joint stipulation to submit the case to arbitration, and in February 2020 the circuit court entered an order compelling arbitration. In November 2021, an arbitrator issued a final award in favor of Fair Haven. A month later, Taylor filed a notice of appeal. Thereafter, she filed a motion to set aside or vacate the arbitration award. In response, Fair Haven filed a motion for the entry of a final judgment. On February 2, 2022, the circuit court entered an order noting that the purported postjudgment motions were not ripe, because the circuit clerk had not entered the arbitration award as a final judgment. On February 22, 2022, the circuit clerk entered the arbitration award as a final judgment. Taylor's motion to vacate was denied by operation of law 90 days later, on May 23, 2022. The Alabama Supreme Court concluded Taylor failed to demonstrate a recognized basis under 9 U.S.C. § 10 for vacating the arbitration award; the denial by operation of law of her Rule 59 motion to vacate the arbitration award was therefore affirmed. View "Taylor v. Methodist Home for the Aging d/b/a Fair Haven, et al." on Justia Law

Alabama Somerby, LLC, d/b/a Brookdale University Park IL/AL/MC; Brookdale Senior Living, Inc.; and Undrea Wright (collectively, Brookdale) appealed a circuit court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration of the claims asserted against them by plaintiff, L.D., as the next friend of her mother, E.D. Brookdale operated an assisted-living facility for seniors ("the nursing home") in Jefferson County, Alabama; Wright was the administrator of the nursing home. In March 2022, L.D. filed on E.D.'s behalf, a complaint against Brookdale and Wright and others, asserting various tort claims and seeking related damages premised on allegations that, following her admission to the nursing home, E.D. had been subjected to multiple sexual assaults both by other residents and by an employee of Brookdale. The Brookdale defendants jointly moved to compel arbitration of L.D.'s claims against them or, alternatively, to dismiss the action without prejudice to allow those claims to proceed via arbitration. Following a hearing, the trial court, denied the motion seeking to dismiss the action or to compel arbitration. The Brookdale defendants timely appealed, asserting that the trial court had erred by failing to order arbitration. The Alabama Supreme Court concluded the Brookdale defendants established that an agreement providing for arbitration existed and that the agreement affected interstate commerce. The trial court erred in denying the Brookdale defendants' request to compel arbitration. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Alabama Somerby, LLC, et al. v. L.D." on Justia Law

In 2015, a conservatorship of the estate of Thomas Tedesco, a wealthy nonagenarian (Thomas), was created, and Thomas requested the appointment of respondent David Wilson, an independent professional fiduciary, as conservator of the estate. Thomas’s second wife, Gloria Tedesco (Gloria) was present at the hearing and stipulated on the record, through counsel, to Wilson’s appointment. Approximately six years later, on March 23, 2021, Gloria petitioned the probate court to vacate the order creating the conservatorship, along with all subsequent orders “emanating” from the conservatorship. The court denied the petition, and she appealed. Through a "myriad of disjointed arguments," Gloria challenged the probate court’s order striking her petition to vacate all the orders in this conservatorship, including the establishment of the conservatorship and appointment of Wilson as the conservator. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Conservatorship of Tedesco" on Justia Law

Clifton Capital Group (“Clifton”) was chair of an official committee of unsecured creditors appointed by the Office of the United States Trustee to monitor the activities of debtor East Coast Foods, Inc., manager of Roscoe’s House of Chicken & Waffles. The bankruptcy court appointed Bradley D. Sharp as Chapter 11 trustee. Clifton objected to Sharp’s fee application, but the bankruptcy court awarded the statutory maximum fee. Clifton appealed. The district court concluded that Clifton had standing to appeal, and it remanded. On remand, the bankruptcy court again awarded the statutory maximum. Clifton again appealed, and the bankruptcy court, this time, affirmed.   The Ninth Circuit reversed l reversed the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s enhanced fee award to the trustee. the panel wrote that the Ninth Circuit historically bypassed the Article III inquiry in the bankruptcy context, instead analyzing whether a party is a “person aggrieved” as a principle of prudential standing. The court, however, has returned emphasis to Article III standing following Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014), in which the Supreme Court questioned prudential standing. The panel held that Clifton lacked Article III standing to appeal the fee award because it failed to show that the enhanced fee award would diminish its payment under the bankruptcy plan, and thus it failed to establish an “injury in fact.” The panel also concluded that Clifton did not suffer injury to the timing of its payment because Clifton’s alleged harms were conjectural, and it remained possible that Clifton would be paid within the plan’s initial estimated window. View "IN RE: CLIFTON CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, ET AL V. BRADLEY SHARP" on Justia Law

Kinney, an adjudicated vexatious litigant and disbarred former attorney, obtained leave to pursue an appeal from the final judgment in this probate proceeding. Leave was granted not because Kinney made the necessary threshold showing of merit and absence of intent to harass or delay under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7, but because the vexatious litigant statute has no application to a party who files an appeal in a proceeding he did not initiate.Kinney appealed the Final Distribution and Allowance of Fees Order, apparently claiming that the probate court erred in approving the Special Administrator’s decision not to pay him his $1,000 statutory fee, cancellation of an agreement with a prior administrator of the estate to manage and perform various services relating to a house owned by the estate, and approval of a distribution of $329,684.82 out of the sales proceeds of that house to satisfy indebtedness pursuant to certain judgment liens against that property.The court of appeal affirmed, describing Kinney’s arguments as “incoherent” and a “hodgepodge.” On all but one of the issues presented, Kinney either has no standing to appeal or is barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion; on the remaining claim of error, the probate court acted within its discretion. View "Estate of Kempton" on Justia Law

In pleading guilty to wire fraud and tax evasion, Defendant agreed to forfeit to the Government his interests in Jreck Subs, a franchised chain of sandwich shops that he used to perpetrate his fraud. Claimants, the Swartz Family Trust and Orienta Investors, LLC filed third-party petitions asserting an interest in the forfeited property. The district court granted the Government’s motions to dismiss the petitions, finding that the Trust’s petition was not submitted before the thirty-day deadline to file such petitions expired and that Orienta failed to state a claim under the forfeiture statute, as either the holder of an interest superior to the Government or as a bona fide purchaser for value. The district court also denied Orienta’s motion for reconsideration, as well as Orienta’s motion for leave to amend its petition.   The court affirmed in part and vacated in part. The court concluded that the Trust’s petition was correctly dismissed as untimely and that Orienta’s petition does not state a claim. The court remanded, however, to allow the district court to further consider Orienta’s motion for leave to amend its petition with respect to its claim that it is a bona fide purchaser for value. The court explained that here, two things potentially tip the scales in favor of granting Orienta leave to amend its bona fide purchaser claim. First, the district court based its dismissal of that claim primarily on a technical issue. Second, the Government acknowledged that additional factual development was necessary to resolve whether Orienta’s petition stated a bona fide purchaser for value claim. View "United States v. Swartz Family Trust" on Justia Law

James Hal Ross created a series of trusts prior to his death to benefit his wife, Suzanne Dickson Ross, and sons from a previous marriage. He left some personal effects to Suzanne in his will but bequeathed the remainder of his estate to the James Hal Ross Revocable Trust, created on November 28, 2000. The revocable trust specified that Ross and Suzanne were the beneficiaries during Ross’s lifetime but that, upon his death, its assets would be transferred to two different trusts. The will of Ross was probated, and the estate was closed on July 29, 2005. Eight years later in 2013, the Ross sons petitioned to reopen the estate due to “maladministration” by Suzanne, individually and as executrix, and to require an inventory and accounting of all Suzanne’s activities as executrix of the estate. The action was dismissed in 2014. In 2016, Matthew Ross, through his conservator, Roy Hal Parker Jr., filed a complaint alleging mismanagement of the trusts and the improper selling of trust property by Suzanne. The complaint later was amended to include as Plaintiffs Matthew’s other brothers. Defendants responded by filing or joining another Defendant’s motion to dismiss; alternatively, Defendants sought to transfer the case to the Rankin County Chancery Court. Venue was ultimately transferred and defendants' motion to dismiss was granted based on a general three year statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Ross sons that a ten year statute of limitations applied to some of their claims and ultimately reversed and remanded the case for the chancellor to determine which of the Ross sons’ causes of action dealt with mismanagement of the trusts and with the recovery of land. The Mississippi Supreme Court determined the Court of Appeals erred by ruling on issues not properly pled before the chancery court, so the chancellor's judgment as to the ten year statute of limitations was reinstated. However, the Supreme Court found the Ross sons did sufficiently raise genuine issues of material fact as to Matthew’s soundness of mind, so it affirmed the Court of Appeals in this respect, and remanded the case to the chancery court for further proceedings. View "Parker, et al. v. Ross, et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting petitions made by Lorri Williams to formally probate the estate of Gerry Williams, her ex-husband, and to remove Vicki Hofedlt as personal representative of Gerry's estate, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Gerry and Lorri had two daughters, Brittany Williams and Vicki, during their marriage and later divorced. After Gerry died, Lorri paid for his funeral expenses. Vicki then filed an application for informal probate. Lorri filed a creditor's claim claiming funeral expenses and then filed a petition for formal probate asserting that the divorce decree was a testamentary instrument that needed to be probated along with Gerry's will. Lorri also filed a petition to remove Vicki as personal representative of Gerry's estate. The district court granted both petitions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Vicki was not entitled to relief on her claims of error. View "In re Estate of Williams" on Justia Law

Ronald W. Parker (Decedent) died on April 3, 2020, as a resident of Pittsburg County, Oklahoma. He left behind two adult daughters, Mandy Allford and Shila Pirpich, and a brother, Herman Parker (Herman). A little more than one-year before Decedent's death, he executed a holographic will. A dispute over the disposition of the estate arose between the Decedent's adult children and his brother. A provision in the will conferred a specific bequest of an expected worker's compensation settlement to Decedent's brother. After reviewing pleadings submitted by the parties and stipulations, the trial court determined the decedent's holographic failed to intentionally omit his adult children, and therefore, they were deemed pretermitted heirs by operation of law. Additionally, the lower court concluded that as pretermitted heirs, the daughters were entitled to an intestate share of Decedent's estate pursuant to 84 O.S.2011, § 132. Finally, the trial judge found that 84 O.S.2011, § 133 did not apply to the facts of this case. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision and the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to examine the interplay between 84 O.S.2011, § 132 and 84 O.S.2011, § 133. The Supreme Court found that nothing in § 133 limited its application to those cases in which a will provides for one or more lineal descendants or a surviving spouse. "It broadly applies to apportionment of shares payable to pretermitted heirs from all devisees and/or legatees. The terms lineal descendant are never mentioned in § 133. To interpret the relevant statutes as the trial court and the COCA did would render Decedent's will and § 133 meaningless." However, the Court found that awarding almost the entirety of Decedent's estate to Herman would also eviscerate the purpose of the pretermitted heir statutes. Thus, the Court held § 132 and § 133 were both applicable to the facts of this case. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the proper manner of apportioning the pretermitted shares awarded to Allford and Pirpich, while still recognizing the testator's intent to provide a specific bequest to his brother. View "In the Matter of the Estate of Parker" on Justia Law

In its prior decision, the Ninth Circuit rejected Optional’s contention that DAS should be held in contempt for allegedly failing to comply with the May 2013 final judgment that was entered in these forfeiture proceedings. Optional filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) motion to amend the May 2013 judgment to provide that (1) the $12.6 million that DAS had received “is impressed with a constructive trust in favor of Optional” and that (2) “DAS is directed to return that $12,602,824.09, with interest, to Optional’s counsel.” Optional argued that the May 2013 judgment’s failure to specifically award the $12.6 million to Optional was a “scrivener’s error” that should be corrected under Rule 60(a). The district court denied Optional’s Rule 60(a) motion.   The Ninth Circuit granted DAS Corporation’s motion to summarily affirm the district court’s decision. First, the panel denied Optional’s motion to strike DAS’s papers, which alleged that DAS was not a proper party in this matter. The panel held that this contention was frivolous. The panel held that DAS had standing to object to the proposed entry of a subsequent final judgment that, in its view, did not correctly reflect the court’s earlier rulings that finally disposed of the matter as to DAS. The panel granted DAS’s motion for summary affirmance. Finally, the panel held that despite being warned in the prior decision that its prior litigation maneuvers had gone too far, Optional filed this utterly meritless appeal and filed a frivolous motion contesting DAS’s right even to be heard in this appeal. View "OPTIONAL CAPITAL, INC. V. DAS CORPORATION, ET AL" on Justia Law