Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

In 2017, Michael Tharaldson died and a probate action was opened to administer his estate. Tharaldson was unmarried and had three children, including E.M. The district court found he died intestate. In 2019, Bell Bank filed this action petitioning for a determination of trust beneficiaries and approval of asset distribution. Bell Bank claimed the sole beneficiary was Michael Tharaldson’s brother, Matthew Tharaldson. E.M. objected to the petition. E.M. appeals the ultimate order finding Matthew Tharaldson was the sole beneficiary of the Michael J. Tharaldson Irrevocable Trust Agreement II (“Trust II”) and was entitled to the trust assets. E.M. argues he was a beneficiary under the Michael J. Tharaldson Irrevocable Trust Agreement (“Trust I”), Trust I was unlawfully merged with Trust II, the trustee engaged in illegal trust decanting, and he was entitled to attorney’s fees. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Matthew Tharaldson was the sole beneficiary under the plain language of either trust, and E.M. was not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees. View "Matter of Michael J. Tharaldson Trust" on Justia Law

In this dispute over ownership of some ranchland the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals ruling that a grantor conveys an expectancy interest only through a clear manifestation of the grantor's intent to do so, holding that the court of appeals did not err.Father devised his estate, including Cottonwood Ranch, to Widow for life with the remainder upon her death to his children, including Son. Father granted Widow power to sell estate property and to redirect a child's remainder interest to others. Widow, a co-owner of the ranch, later conveyed her separate interest in the ranch to Son and daughter. Thereafter, while Widow was still living, Son conveyed his "right, title and interest in and to" the ranch to his daughters. At issue was whether Son gifted a remainder interest in Father's estate property when he conveyed his present interest in the same property without expressly reserving any remainder interest. Applying the rule set forth in Clark v. Gauntt, 161 S.W.2d 270 (Tex. [Comm'n Op.] 1942), the Supreme Court held that Son did not convey his remainder interest in the estate property. View "Jordan v. Parker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court holding that a revocable living trust agreement signed by the decedent and the named trustee sufficiently established the decedent's house as trust property, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.At issue was whether the revocable living trust agreement was effective to establish the decedent's house, his only real property, as an asset of the trust under Nevada law and to the satisfaction of the relevant statute of frauds. The district court confirmed the trustee and the house as trust property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trust agreement effectively funded the decedent's house to the trust; (2) the agreement satisfied the common law statute of frauds, Nev. Rev. Stat. 111.205(1); and (3) the decedent's living trust agreement funded the trust with his house. View "In re Trust Agreement of Davies" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's application for attorney fees as a co-trustee under S.D. Codified Laws 55-3-13, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in awarding Appellant nothing in attorney fees.James Endres created an irrevocable family trust, designating his seven children as beneficiaries. The children were later designated as co-trustees. Appellant, one of the children, commenced litigation seeking court supervision of the trust and to remove five of the co-trustees for breach of fiduciary duties. The parties eventually settled all issues except for Appellant's application for attorney fees. The circuit court denied attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellant was entitled to attorney fees under section 55-3-13 for his actions as a co-trustee which were productive to actual benefit of the trust. View "Endres v. Endres" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America (“Allianz”) in Plaintiff’s capacity as a trustee of the Zupnick Family Trust 2008A (“Trust”). Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that an Allianz life insurance policy (“Zupnick Policy”), which Plaintiff contends is owned by the Trust, remains in effect. The district court concluded that the Trust was not the actual owner of the Zupnick Policy under New York law because any assignment of the policy to the Trust failed to comply with the Zupnick Policy’s provision that assignment would be effective upon Allianz’s receipt of written notice of the assignment. The district court held that the Trust lacked contractual standing to sue on the Zupnick Policy, and granted Allianz’s motion to dismiss. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that failure to comply with the provisions of a life insurance policy requiring written notice of assignment cannot, under New York law, render an assignment ineffective.   The Second Circuit certified the question to the Court of Appeals because the argument turns on a question of state law for which no controlling decision of the New York Court of Appeals exists. The court certified the following question: Where a life insurance policy provides that “assignment will be effective upon Notice” in writing to the insurer, does the failure to provide such written notice void the assignment so that the purported assignee does not have contractual standing to bring a claim under the Policy? View "Brettler v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether Judith ("Judy") Scherber was an intestate heir of ("Decedent") Loch David Crane, who died in 2018 while living in San Diego County. Judy’s petition was based on her relationship with Charles Bloodgood (Charles). In 1951, Charles and his wife Frances Bloodgood (Frances) took two-year-old Judy into their home after she was abandoned by her birth parents, and for the duration of their lifetimes, held Judy out as their own child while domiciled in Indiana. Applying California law to undisputed facts jointly submitted by the parties, the probate court found Judy was the presumed natural child of Charles under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA); that Shannon Wehsener (Shannon), a first cousin of Decedent who had opposed Judy’s petition, had failed to proffer any facts to rebut that presumption; and that Judy therefore was Decedent’s heir through Charles, based on Charles openly holding her out as his own child during his lifetime. Shannon argued the probate court erred in applying California law to determine the existence of a natural parental relationship between Charles and Judy. Shannon argued the court instead should have applied Indiana law, where that relationship was effectuated. And unlike California, Indiana law did not recognize the existence of a natural parent and child relationship for purposes of determining heirship when a parent openly holds out a child as that parent’s own. Shannon further argued that even if California law applied and Charles was the presumed natural parent of Judy, that presumption was rebutted purely on the basis of public policy. Exercising independent review, the California Court of Appeal concluded California law applied in determining parentage between Judy and Charles for purposes of intestate succession. Based on the undisputed facts, the Court further concluded clear and convincing evidence supported the probate court’s finding that Charles was the presumed natural parent of Judy under the UPA; that Shannon did not meet her burden to produce clear and convincing evidence to rebut that presumption; and that the presumption could not be rebutted purely on the grounds of public policy. View "Wehsener v. Jernigan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that Tonya Edwards and Jennifer Edwards failed to state a claim for contribution or indemnity and denying the Edwardses' claim for subrogation, holding that there was no error.The Edwardses, as assignees of Douglas County, brought complaints against the estate of Kenneth Clark seeking to recover expenses that County incurred in defending and settling lawsuits the Edwardses brought against it for allegedly responding negligently to acts of assault and battery committed by Clark. The district court concluded that the County was immune under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act from claims arising out of battery, and therefore, the County did not have a common liability with Clark's estate. The court thus denied the claims for contribution or indemnity and for subrogation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the Edwardses' complaint. View "Edwards v. Estate of Clark" on Justia Law

The court appointed a guardian ad litem for two minor trust beneficiaries. A few years later, but before the beneficiaries reached 18, they sought the removal of the guardian ad litem. The guardian responded by filing a motion to disqualify the beneficiaries' attorney, which the trial court granted. The beneficiaries appealed.By the time the case reached the Second Appellate District, the beneficiaries had reached the age of majority. Thus, The Second Appellate District reversed the trial court's order disqualifying the counsel of two trust beneficiaries, finding that the issue was moot. The court explained that there is no longer statutory authority permitting the appointment of a guardian ad litem because the beneficiaries are no longer minors. View "Chui v. Chui" on Justia Law

In these appeals relating several statutes and issues regarding the administration of a discretionary trust the Supreme Court held that Nev. Rev. Stat. 165.1207(1)(b)(5) does not provide a beneficiary whose only distribution in a trust is discretionary with a right to an accounting and that Nev. Rev. Stat. 165.180 does not provide a district court with an independent basis on which to order an accounting.At issue on appeal was what disclosures must be made by the trustees to the beneficiaries in the administration of the trust. The district court concluded that the beneficiaries were not entitled to an accounting. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Nevada's trust statutes did not require the trustees to provide the beneficiaries with an accounting because the beneficiaries' sole distribution interests were discretionary; and (2) because the beneficiaries constituted "present" and "vested" beneficiaries, they were entitled to request and receive copies of certain trust instruments, may inspect the books of account and records of financial transactions and may receive an annual tax return, inventory, and accounting under the terms of the trust. View "In re Trust Agreement, 23 Partners Trust I" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Industrial Commission dismissing Shannon Stocks's claim for death benefits, holding that Stocks - the decedent's alleged, cohabitating fiancee - lacked a legally-recognized relationship and thus could not file a claim for death benefits.The decedent in this case died from injuries sustained in an industrial accident at Defendant. Plaintiffs - the decedent's daughter, son, estranged wife, and Stocks - all filed claims for death benefits under the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act. The Commission dismissed Stocks's claim for benefits, and a consent order was entered dividing the decedent's death benefits equally among the remaining plaintiffs. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff could not file a claim for death benefits because she lacked a legal relationship with the decedent sufficient to qualify as a dependent under N.C. Gen. Stat. 97-39. View "West v. Hoyle's Tire & Axle, LLC" on Justia Law