Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court on remand declaring that Lynn and Lisa Schock satisfied the conditions of Bonnie J. Pease's handwritten holographic will, holding that the circuit court did not err.After the Supreme Court held that the will in this case appointed the Schocks as the personal representatives and gave them Bonnie's entire estate subject to conditions, the circuit court, on remand, declared that the Schocks satisfied the will's conditions and approved the proposed final distribution of the estate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the Schocks satisfied the conditions. View "In re Estate of Hubert" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the district court discharging Guardian Life Insurance Company of America from this interpleader action and awarding the death benefit in dispute to Robyn Caplis-Sevelitte (Robyn), holding that remand was required for a determination of who was entitled to the death benefit.In this action, Renee Sevelitte, the ex-wife of Joseph Sevelitte, the decedent, and Robyn, the decedent's widow, asserted competing claims to the death benefit of a life insurance policy owned by Joseph and administered by Guardian. Renee sued Guardian asserting four claims based on Guardian's failure to pay her the proceeds from the policy and cross claimed against Robyn. Guardian asserted a counterclaim for interpleader against Renee, Robyn, and Joseph's estate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 22. The district court entered judgment on the pleadings in Guardian's and Robyn's favor and dismissed Renee's crossclaims against Robyn. The First Circuit affirmed the entry of judgment on the pleadings in favor of Guardian with respect to the death benefit from the policy but vacated and remanded as to Robyn, holding that the district court erred. View "Sevelitte v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America" on Justia Law

Wade Chapman (“Wade”) and his six siblings (“Siblings”) were the children of Wilford (“Bill”) Chapman. Bill had a life insurance policy for $7,000,000 that named the Chapman Family Multiple Power Liquidity Trust (“Trust”) as its owner. Wade, along with Siblings, were named as the Trust’s beneficiaries. Wade was also named a trustee. After Bill passed away, Wade learned that he was listed as the sole beneficiary of the life insurance policy and retained the entirety of the death benefit for himself. Siblings sued Wade for breach of fiduciary duty, among other causes of action, arguing that the policy was a Trust asset, and its proceeds should have been distributed equally among them. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of Siblings. It also awarded prejudgment interest against Wade under Idaho Code section 28-22-104 and attorney fees under Idaho Code section 15-8-201, a provision of the Trust and Estate Dispute Resolution Act (“TEDRA”). The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Siblings, affirmed in part and reversed in part the award of prejudgment interest, and reversed the grant of attorney fees to Siblings under TEDRA. View "Vouk v. Chapman" on Justia Law

In this case stemming from a lengthy and acrimonious family dispute over the property of Donelson Glassie, whose estate remained in probate in Rhode Island eleven years after his death, the First Circuit reversed the judgment of the federal district court dismissing Plaintiff's claims as barred by the probate exception to federal court jurisdiction, holding that the district court erred.Plaintiff, Donelson's daughter, brought this action against several family members, including the executor of Donelson's estate, alleging that Defendants were liable to her under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) laws, 18 U.S.C. 1962, because they formed an enterprise that engaged in a pattern of fraudulent interstate communications and that Defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to her as a minority member of an entity wholly owned by a company in which the estate held a fifty-eight percent interest, and other claims. The district court dismissed all claims. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the district court erred in finding the probate exception applicable to this case. View "Glassie v. Doucette" on Justia Law

Milton Turner died on July 25, 2018. On September 20, 2018, Mildred Williamson petitioned for letters of administration of Turner's estate in the probate court. In her petition, Williamson asserted that Turner had died intestate and that Williamson was Turner's only surviving heir. In 2019, Williamson, individually and in her capacity as the personal representative of Turner's estate, entered into a contract agreeing to sell to Matthew Drinkard and Jefferson Dolbare ("the purchasers") real property belonging to the estate for $880,650. The real-estate sales contract specified that the closing of the sale was to occur on or before May 31, 2019. On February 7, 2019, Williamson, individually and in her capacity as personal representative of Turner's estate, executed a deed conveying other real property that was part of Turner's estate to Marcus Hester. On February 13, 2019, Callway Sargent, alleging to be an heir of Turner's, filed a claim of heirship in Turner's estate. Sargent also moved for injunctive relief in which he acknowledged the February 7, 2019, deed, but asserted that Williamson had agreed to sell and had conveyed real property belonging to Turner's estate without the approval of the probate court, and requested that the probate court enjoin "Williamson from engaging in any further administration of [Turner's] estate until so ordered by [the probate court]." Williamson petitioned to have the case removed fro probate to the circuit court. From February 28, 2019, to March 18, 2019, a number of individuals came forward, all claiming to be Turner's heirs. Williamson moved to have the circuit court approve the pending property sales. Williamson and the purchasers did not close on the sale of the property that was the subject of their real-estate sales contract by May 31, 2019, as required by the contract. Some of the purported heirs petitioned the circuit court to stay or vacate the order approving the purchasers contact until matters regarding the heirs was resolved. Drinkard and Dolbare filed a motion to intervene in the proceedings regarding the administration of Turner's estate, but the circuit court denied the motion. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of the purchasers' motion to intervene in the administration of Turner's estate. View "Drinkard, et al. v. Perry, et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court disqualifying Risie Howard as the attorney representing the estate of Mrs. George Howard in a case arising from Mrs. Howard's medical treatment, holding that the circuit court's ruling represented a manifest abuse of discretion.On appeal, Howard argued that the circuit court erroneously interpreted Rule 3.7 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct and misapplied the test promulgated in Weigel v. Farmers Insurance Co., 158 S.W.3d 147 (Ark. 2004), in granting Defendants' motion to disqualify her. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court did not faithfully apply Rule 3.7 and the precedent established by Weigel and its progeny in disqualifying Howard. View "Howard v. Baptist Health" on Justia Law

Cheryl Feickert appealed a district court’s judgment entered after a bench trial. Ashley Feickert was a minor when her father died intestate in 1988. Ashley inherited an undivided one-fourth interest in real property from her father. Her mother, Cheryl, became her conservator in 1990. Cheryl, as conservator, leased Ashley's interest in the land starting in April 1989, but failed to provide an accounting of the lease income until September 2020. In March 2021, Ashley filed suit against Cheryl alleging breach of fiduciary duties for failure to keep suitable records, self-dealing, and failure to distribute assets as Ashley's conservator. Cheryl filed an answer asserting the affirmative defenses of estoppel, waiver, laches, contributory negligence, unclean hands, and unjust enrichment. The answer included a prayer for relief requesting the court to dismiss the action, award reasonable fees and costs, and any other such relief the court deemed just and proper. Cheryl's answer did not include facts supporting her claimed defenses, nor did it specifically include a counterclaim for unjust enrichment or a request for a damages offset. The matter was tried to a district court and judgment entered in Ashley's favor. On appeal, Cheryl argued the district court erred by failing to consider her unjust enrichment claim and by denying her an offset to the damages awarded to Ashley. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Feickert v. Feickert" on Justia Law

This case concerns a $225,000 life insurance policy issued on the life of C.S. When C.S. died in 2018, his estate (“Estate”) made a claim for the policy proceeds. His former employer, Kansas City Chrome Shop (“KCCS”), together with KCCS’s president, Dora Clark-Wall, made a competing claim. After the district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Estate, Clark-Wall brought equitable claims in her personal capacity. Following a bench trial, the district court found that Clark-Wall was entitled to an equitable portion of the proceeds totaling $55,253.28 and that the Estate was entitled to the remaining $169,746.72. KCCS and Clark-Wall appealed.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Clark-Wall’s continued payments and renewal of the policy were essentially a gamble on C.S’s life—a benefit she hoped to reap if he died before she did. The law does not view such conduct favorably. The court, therefore, failed to see how the principles of fairness and justice demand that Clark-Wall is awarded accumulated interest on her payments. Accordingly, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s equitable award to Clark-Wall. View "The Estate of Charles D. Smith v. Kansas City Chrome Shop, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court granting Sally Johnson's request to supervise and reform a trust and denied Mindy Smith's petition seeking clarification from the court and requesting other relief, holding that the circuit court erred in denying certain attorney fees.After Fred Peterson died, his daughter Sally filed separate petitions seeking court supervision and reformation of one of the two trusts he created in his lifetime. Another daughter, Mindy opposed the reformation and requested other relief. After a trial, the circuit court granted Sally's petition to reform the trust at issue and denied all of Mindy's petitions and motions. Sally subsequently filed a motion for reimbursement of attorney fees and expenses, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded the case, holding (1) the circuit court was authorized to award Sally attorney fees under S.D. Codified Laws 15-17-38; (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the litigation did not provide the trust with an economic benefit; and (3) attorney fees were authorized for Sally's efforts to vindicate her father's intent. View "In re Petersen Trusts" on Justia Law

Stephen Ankuda, Esq., as the administrator of the Estate of Miriam Thomas, appealed a court order granting former guardian Paul Thomas’s motion to dismiss a decision of the probate division. The probate division ordered Thomas to reimburse his mother’s estate for what it described as damages incurred during his tenure as her financial guardian. However, the Vermont Supreme Court found the civil division did not have subject-matter jurisdiction because the probate division’s order was not a final order. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the civil division’s order and remanded to the probate division for further proceedings. View "In re Estate of Miriam Thomas" on Justia Law