Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's appeal from the district court's denial of his petition to create a constructive trust, holding that the court of appeals did not err by dismissing the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.Joseph Figliuzzi, who created a trust for holding wetland credits, sought to hold the credits in his own name rather than in the trust. After Figliuzzi died, Appellant brought this action seeking to confirm that the trust owned the subject credits and to establish a constructive trust over the disputed credits. The district court denied relief, concluding that Figliuzzi owned the credits at the time of his death. The court of appeals dismissed Appellant's ensuing appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the order being appealed from lacked finality, it could not be appealed under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03(g); and (2) the district court's order was not a denial of injunctive relief. View "In re Estate of Joseph Rocco Figliuzzi" on Justia Law

Gwendolyn Barnett and Robert Lee Hull, Jr. were siblings and the sole legal heirs of their father, Robert Lee Hull, Sr. ("Robert"), who died testate. Pursuant to Robert's will, Hull and Barnett were listed as beneficiaries entitled to equal shares of his estate and Barnett was named personal representative of his estate. In August 2019, Barnett obtained letters testamentary from the Probate Court. The administration of Robert's estate ("the estate administration") was later removed to the Circuit Court and assigned case no. CV-19-900322 following Hull's filing of a verified petition for removal. While the estate administration continued, Hull commenced the underlying action, a separate civil action against Barnett in the Circuit Court ("the tort action"), which was assigned case no. CV-20- 900192. Hull's complaint in the tort action alleged that Barnett, in her role as "a partial caretaker of [Robert]" before his death, had exerted undue influence over Robert and had gained control of Robert's personal property and assets. According to Hull, in the absence of Barnett's purported misconduct, items that Barnett allegedly misappropriated would "have become part of [Robert's] estate." Among other relief, Hull sought the imposition of a constructive trust "in an effort to avoid [Barnett's] further unjust enrichment." Barnett filed a motion seeking to dismiss the tort action. In her motion, Barnett asserted that Hull's complaint in the tort action realleged claims purportedly "identical" to claims that Hull had previously asserted in the estate administration, which had been dismissed. The trial court in the tort action entered an order granting Hull's motion in full. Barrett appealed, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Hull's claims. The Alabama Supreme Court concurred the trial court lacked jurisdiction over matters relating to the pending estate administration. It reversed all orders entered by the trial court in the tort action, and remanded for that court to enter an order dismissing Hull's complaint. View "Barnett v. Hull" on Justia Law

Jones established a trust, naming his daughter (Spencer) as successor trustee. The property was the trust’s principal asset. Jones later married Grays-Jones, but did not amend the trust. Jones contracted to sell the property to CDI for $13.6 million. Jones died shortly thereafter. Months later, Grays-Jones petitioned for an interest in Jones’s estate as an omitted spouse. While the property was still in escrow, Grays-Jones and Spencer, as trustee, agreed the trust “shall pay to [Grays-Jones] a total of $3,000,000 . . . as her full and final settlement of [Grays-Jones’s] interest in the Estate. Payment of said amount shall be paid ... out of the escrow from the sale of the [property].” Grays-Jones would move out of Jones’s residence in exchange for $150,000, which would constitute “an advance against the total settlement.” A stipulated judgment incorporated the settlement. Spencer, as trustee, paid Grays-Jones $150,000; Grays-Jones moved out of Jones’s residence. The sale of the property fell through. Spencer did not pay Grays-Jones the outstanding $2.85 million.Grays-Jones sought to enforce the stipulated judgment, alleging Spencer frustrated the sale of the property. She requested the appointment of a temporary trustee to sell the residence and property. The trial court denied the petition, finding the settlement agreement unenforceable because the sale was a condition precedent. The court of appeal reversed. The settlement agreement contained a condition precedent as to the method of payment, but Spencer’s independent promise to pay $3 million is enforceable and remains payable upon the property’s sale. View "Estate of Jones" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether distributions from a Delaware statutory trust to beneficial owners were subject to garnishment by a creditor. The beneficial owners argued Delaware law prohibited garnishment of the distributions because they were trust property. They also argued that Delaware law prohibited garnishment of the distributions because the trust was a spendthrift trust. The creditor contended the appeal was moot because the trust converted to a partnership. As to the merits, the creditor contended the distributions were personal property subject to garnishment, not trust property. They further argued the beneficial owners failed to argue below that the trust was a spendthrift trust; thus, they were barred from raising that argument on appeal.Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court held: (1) the appeal was not moot; (2) the trust distributions were personal property subject to garnishment; and (3) the appellants waived the argument that the trust at issue was a spendthrift trust. Thus, the judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Protech Minerals, Inc. v. Dugout Team, LLC" on Justia Law

Ramsey Walter El Wardani died intestate in 2016 and was survived by his wife Janine and daughter from a previous marriage, Alexandria (Ali). Four years into a protracted probate dispute between Janine and Ali, the court removed Janine as court-appointed administrator of Ramsey’s estate. It deemed her ineligible to serve in that role because it found that she was not a United States (U.S.) resident as required by California Probate Code section 8402(a)(4). Emphasizing her numerous ties to California, Janine appealed her removal as administrator of her deceased husband’s estate. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding the trial court reasonably rejected her claim to U.S. residency despite those ties. Janine sold her home in California and moved with Ramsey to Mexico in 2014 intending to retire there. She remained in Mexico “full time” for two years until Ramsey’s death. Although she returned to California for visits thereafter, she did not relocate or plan to move back to the U.S. until the probate case was over. View "Estate of El Wardani" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit certified the following three questions to the Georgia Supreme Court regarding Georgia’s fiduciary duty to disclose.(1) If a confidential relationship creates a duty to disclose which, if breached, would constitute fraud sufficient to toll the statute of limitations, would that duty to disclose also support a breach of fiduciary duty tort claim under Georgia law?(2) If so, may an adult fiduciary in a confidential relationship with a minor beneficiary without a written agreement discharge his duty to disclose by disclosing solely to the minor’s parents or guardians?(3) If the adult fiduciary does have an obligation to disclose to the minor beneficiary directly without a written agreement, when must the adult fiduciary disclose or redisclose to the minor beneficiary? View "Elkin King v. Forrest King, Jr." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court denying the motions filed by Kristina Libbert and Darren Hickey to intervene in the underlying petition challenging the validity of an amendment to the Shirley A. Hickey Trust and for clarification and reconsideration, holding that a portion of the order denying the motion for clarification and reconsideration must be vacated.Nearly one year after Bradley Hickey filed a petition challenging the validity of an amendment to the Shirley A. Hickey Trust Kristina and Darren moved to intervene in the petition. The circuit court denied the motion on the grounds that it was untimely. Thereafter, Kristina and Darren filed their motion for clarification and reconsideration, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the order denying intervention, holding that remand was required to consider the timeliness of the motion to intervene under the standards set forth in S.D. Codified Laws 15-6-24(a)(2); and (2) vacated the portion of the circuit court's order on the motion for clarification and reconsideration, holding that the trial court must reconsider this order after reconsidering Kristina and Darren's request for intervention. View "In re Hickey Living Trust" on Justia Law

A conservator was appointed after the minor children’s grandmother had already brought a wrongful-death lawsuit on their behalf. The conservator tried in various ways to exercise his litigation powers, with the goal of dismissing the grandmother’s lawsuit and bringing a similar one in a different county. The conservator was eventually joined as an “involuntary plaintiff” in the grandmother’s lawsuit, and his further attempts to gain control of the litigation, in that court and others, were rejected. He appealed several rulings unfavorable to him, but the Court of Appeals concluded that he had forfeited his exclusive power under OCGA § 29-3-22 (a) (6) earlier in the case when he declined to join the grandmother’s case voluntarily and sought its dismissal. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that a conservator who declines to join preexisting litigation voluntarily and seeks to have that litigation dismissed does not thereby forfeit his exclusive power to participate in that litigation after he is joined as a party under OCGA § 9-11- 19 (a). So the Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ contrary holding, vacated the parts of the Court of Appeals’ opinion affected by it, and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings. View "Hall, et al. v. Davis Lawn Care Service, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

King is Jimmy's former spouse and mother of his minor child. Jimmy was killed in a California helicopter crash. His sole heirs were his spouse, Wasdin, and his minor child. Jimmy and King were residents of Alabama. An Alabama probate court named King as the personal representative of Jimmy’s estate. King filed a California wrongful death suit. Wasdin moved to intervene; Code Civil Procedure 387(d)(1)(B)) provides that a court “shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene” if “[t]he person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction" and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair that person’s ability to protect that interest unless that person’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties. King asserted the one-action rule, which precludes an heir from filing an independent action after a decedent’s personal representative has filed suit for wrongful death, and that any complaints about the inadequacy of her representation of Wasdin’s interest should be addressed by the Alabama probate court.The court of appeal reversed the denial of Wasdin’s motion. An heir must be granted leave to intervene as a matter of right so long as the statutory requirements for intervention have been met. The trial court denied the motion on the incorrect basis that there was no legal authority allowing an heir to intervene in a wrongful death action filed by the personal representative and failed to consider whether the heir’s interests were adequately represented by the personal representative. View "King v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co." on Justia Law

Ball Healthcare Services, Inc. ("Ball Healthcare"), appealed a circuit court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in Ledell Flennory's wrongful-death suit against it. Because the Alabama Supreme Court determined Flennory did not meet his burden of rebutting Ball Healthcare's evidence that an enforceable arbitration agreement existed, judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Ball Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Flennory" on Justia Law