Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

After Nick Martino (Decedent) died intestate, his stepson from a previous marriage, Nick Zambito, petitioned to be deemed an heir. Decedent’s biological children, Tracey Martino and Joseph Martino (together, Objectors), objected. After a bench trial, the probate court determined that Decedent was Zambito’s “natural parent” under Probate Code sections 6540 and 6453, which defined the “natural parent” and child relationship for purposes of intestate succession. The Court of Appeal concluded Zambito had standing to claim natural parentage heirship even though he was not the Decedent’s biological child. The Court further concluded that Probate Code section 6454, which provided a pathway for intestate succession by stepchildren and foster children, did not operate to foreclose other available statutory methods for a stepchild to establish a right to intestate succession. In the absence of any challenge to the sufficiency of evidence to support the probate court’s factual findings under this theory, the Court concluded that Objectors failed to demonstrate any reversible error. View "Estate of Martino" on Justia Law

Noble Prestige Limited lent Paul Thomas Horn $500,000 to pursue litigation against a telecommunications company. While the litigation was pending, a conservatorship over Horn’s assets was commenced in a probate court in Denver, Colorado (the “Denver Probate Court”). The case was settled, and the proceeds were placed in the conservatorship estate, subject to Galle’s management and the ultimate custody and control of the Denver Probate Court. Noble ultimately obtained arbitral awards that required Horn to pay Noble the debt owed under the loan agreement and Galle to pay Noble costs associated with the arbitration. Noble moved to confirm the awards and sought a temporary restraining order prohibiting Galle, Horn, and Galle’s law firm. Galle and GLG (together, “Respondents”) opposed Noble’s request and moved to dismiss the action. The district court granted Noble’s request, entering what it termed a “temporary restraining order” that prohibited Galle from dissipating or transferring $10,000,000 “notwithstanding any order(s) entered by the [Denver] Probate Court.” The district court also entered an order granting Respondents’ motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part. Respondents appealed both orders.   The Eleventh Circuit dismissed Respondents’ appeal to the extent it challenged the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss, vacated the district court’s entry of preliminary injunctive relief, and remanded the case. The court explained that Noble’s petition fails to invoke the equitable jurisdiction of the district court and, therefore, the issuance of a preliminary injunction under Rule 65 was improper. Further, the court explained that district court lacked the power to issue an order freezing the AT&T settlement funds pending judgment. View "Noble Prestige Limited v. Craig Thomas Galle, et al" on Justia Law

The parents, now deceased, established the Trust. Their daughter is the trustee. There are four other children. The Trust is a 70 percent shareholder of the Company. Each sibling owns an equal share of the remaining 30 percent. A Company shareholder agreement provides that any shareholder owning more than 50 percent of the company can take various actions in their “sole discretion,” including borrowing, lending, and transferring assets. The Trust's balance, after expenses and specific distributions, shall be distributed equally to five sub-trusts benefiting the five siblings. Among the Trust’s liabilities are outstanding loans made by the Company. Two siblings filed a petition to instruct the trustee, to take specified actions, including directing the Company to borrow substantial sums of money to pay estate taxes owed by the Trust. The Company responded to the Petition.The court held that because the Company was neither a trustee nor a beneficiary, it lacked standing to participate in proceedings on the Petition. The court of appeal remanded, finding, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that Probate Code section 1043(a), authorizes “interested persons” to respond or object at or before a hearing in a trust proceeding. The probate court must make the discretionary determination of whether the Company is an interested person. View "Colvis v. Binswanger" on Justia Law

Boesch and Hudson were unmarried partners. The 1994 Boesch Trust was funded with his 50 percent interest in each of the subject properties. The Hudson Trust was funded with Hudson’s 50 percent interest in each of those properties. Boesch died in 1995. Hudson died in 2019. Mulvihill is the successor trustee of both Trusts. The Museum is the sole residuary beneficiary of the Boesch Trust.Mulvihill filed a Probate Code section 17200 petition, seeking instructions due to “a potential conflict in administering the trust,” alleging the Museum requested that the acquisition indebtedness on the subject properties be paid off and that the Boesch Trust make an in-kind distribution of its interests to the Museum so that the Museum may, as a tax-exempt organization, sell the interests without suffering certain tax consequences. The Hudson Trust beneficiaries, which do not face the same tax consequences, prefer that the trusts sell the properties undivided and distribute the proceeds.The probate court instructed Mulvihill to sell the properties and distribute the proceeds. The court of appeal reversed, noting a trust provision granting the trustee “sole discretion” to distribute the trust property in cash or in kind. Because Mulvihill never purported to exercise that discretion, the court remanded with directions that, barring any conflict of interest matters that may arise, Mulvihill be instructed to exercise his discretion to grant or deny the Museum’s request for an in-kind distribution of the trust’s property interests. View "Stadel Art Museum v. Mulvihill" on Justia Law

Appellant is the only child of the late J.B. Appellant opposed respondent Olan Mills II’s petition to probate a 2001 will that effectively denied Appellant any share of his father’s estate. The court approved the petition and admitted the will to probate. Appellant appealed. He contends Mills filed his petition beyond the period allowed by Probate Code section 8226, subdivision (c).   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that Appellant’s liberal interpretation of the phrase “has received notice” is also inconsistent with the statute’s plain language. The Legislature could have drafted subdivision (c) to apply to those will proponents who receive notice of some post-hearing event, such as issuance of a probate order or letters of administration. It did not. The court explained that limiting the application of section 8226, subdivision (c) to those who receive notice under section 8110 will not, as Appellant argues, hinder the prompt administration of estates. View "Bailey v. Bailey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Shelby Hughes and her law firm, Barney & Graham, LLC, (collectively, Defendants) in the underlying legal malpractice lawsuit, holding that the district court did not err.Michael and Charlene Schlegel were in the process of divorcing when Michael died intestate. Because Charlene inherited portions of Michael's estate that she would not have had the divorce been finalized before Michael died Taran Schlegal, Michael's son, sued Defendants for legal malpractice. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding that no duty was owed to Taran where there was no evidence that Taran was an intended beneficiary of Defendants' services. View "Schlegel v. Barney & Graham, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court concluding that enforcement of in terrorem, or no-contest, clauses in the decedent's will and trust agreement against Defendant would violate public policy, holding that the appellate court did not err.Plaintiff was the son and Defendant was the daughter of Mae Salce, the settlor of the trust agreement in this case. Both the trust agreement and the will contained an in terrorem clause providing that if a beneficiary takes certain actions she forfeits her rights as a beneficiary under the instruments. The appellate court concluded that enforcement of the clauses against Defendant, a beneficiary, would violate public policy when Defendant challenged certain aspects of the performance of a fiduciary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant's actions were based in good faith, enforcement of the in terrorem clauses would violate the public policy embodied in statutes requiring probate courts to supervise fiduciaries. View "Salce v. Cardello" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of The Genevieve J. Parmely Revocable Trust asking the court to determine that an option agreement made with Brad Magness was invalid because of the absence of consideration, holding that the circuit court erred.In denying summary judgment for Magness and in granting the Trust's second motion for summary judgment the circuit court determined that the written option agreements at issue were not supported by independent consideration and were null and void. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Trust failed to rebut the presumption of consideration established by S.D. Codified Laws 53-6-3. View "Genevieve J. Parmely Revocable Trust v. Magness" on Justia Law

When Frank died, Leslie, his daughter, was appointed as executor and personal representative of the estate, Independent Administration of Estates Act (Prob. Code, 10400). In his will, Frank confirmed his surviving spouse’s (Caroline’s) interest in their community and quasi-community property, and bequeathed all of his separate property, plus his one-half interest in their community and quasi-community property, to his three children, explicitly disinheriting Caroline, who is not their mother. Leslie, on behalf of Frank’s estate, filed in propria persona in the probate action a complaint for partition by sale of real property, claiming that Caroline improperly withdrew proceeds from a reverse mortgage and other allegedly fraudulent conduct. Caroline argued Leslie, as the personal representative of Frank’s estate, could not appear in propria persona in that representative capacity.The probate court granted the motions to strike with leave to amend to give Leslie the opportunity to retain counsel. The court determined that Leslie’s complaint “primarily consists of civil claims typically raised in a civil action. [Leslie], a non-attorney, cannot properly prosecute those claims in propria persona in any venue.” The court of appeal affirmed. Leslie’s complaint is a claim against third parties for the benefit of the estate’s beneficiaries, such that it could not be prosecuted by Leslie in propria persona; her conduct in filing briefs and other pleadings as representative of the estate constituted the unlicensed practice of law. View "Estate of Sanchez" on Justia Law

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted this writ application to address the manner in which the proponent of a notarial testament must prove conformity with its statutory form requirements; specifically, whether an unsigned copy of a lost notarial testament could be probated with extrinsic evidence only. This matter arose out of a petition to open the small succession of the decedent, Diana Bartlett Morgan, filed by her daughter, Diana Lynn Ford. The petition alleged the decedent died intestate as an executed Last Will and Testament could not be located or produced by the surviving spouse, James William Morgan. Mr. Morgan subsequently petitioned to probate a lost will alleging that the decedent executed a proper one-page notarial testament on June 22, 2016. Mr. Morgan sought to remove Ms. Ford as administratrix, to be named as independent executor, and for the issuance of letters of independent administration arguing that Ms. Ford failed to advise the court of the existence of a copy of decedent’s will. He further alleged that the original notarial testament was believed to have been deposited into a safety deposit box belonging to Lawrence Dupre, the drafting attorney. After a search of the box, the notarial testament could not be located. In support of his petition, Mr. Morgan submitted an unsigned copy of the lost notarial testament. Finding that the evidence presented failed to meet the requirements, the Court held the purported testament was absolutely null. View "In re: Succession of Diana Bartlett Morgan" on Justia Law