Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

Luke Beard executed a will on February 13, 1987. The will named Luke’s daughter, Diane Christmas, as executrix, and it left all of Luke’s property, including thirty-two acres of land, to his grandson, Antonio Christmas. Despite being named as executrix, Diane did not know about the will. Luke died on February 26, 2001. After Luke’s death, Diane and Antonio became estranged. Having no knowledge of the will, Diane petitioned to open an estate in 2002. Antonio was unaware of the estate proceeding. At some point in 2003, Antonio found Luke’s will in a closet in Luke’s house. Antonio did not tell his mother about the will and took no action regarding the will. In 2014, Diane filed a second petition to open an estate. As with the first petition, Antonio was unaware of the estate proceeding. According to Antonio, an order was later entered closing the estate and vesting title of the thirty-two acres of land to Diane. In 2017, Good Hope, Inc., entered the land and started to cut timber on the property. When Antonio attempted to stop them, he learned of the estate actions filed by Diane. Seventeen years after Luke’s death and fifteen years after he found the will, Antonio petitioned to probate Luke’s will. Diane contested the will and filed her objection to Antonio’s petition to probate. The matter went to trial before the chancery court. The issue this case presented for the Mississippi Supreme Court's review was what evidence was required to prove the execution of a will when both the testator and the subscribing witnesses are deceased. The Court found that in the absence of the testimony of at least one subscribing witness, a proponent of a will must prove the handwriting of the testator and at least two subscribing witnesses. Because there was proof of only one of the subscribing witnesses’ signatures, the chancellor did not err by dismissing the petition to probate the purported will. View "In the Matter of the Last Will and Testament of Luke Beard" on Justia Law

Robert Louis Dill appealed a circuit court judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of Douglas Dill in Douglas's action contesting the purported will of Walter Dill, Jr. Walter and his wife Alva purchased a house across the street from Douglas (his son) and his wife Peggy, and Douglas' children. After Alva died, Douglas and Peggy assisted Walter with things such as preparing his meals and taking him to his appointments. Robert, Walter's brother, did not visit with Walter much before Alva's death because Alva did not care for Robert. However, after Alva died, Robert started visiting Walter and spending time with him on a frequent basis. Robert began taking Walter to certain places and appointments. By 2008, Walter did not really trust anyone but Robert and that Robert had "spread his wings over Walter." Peggy further stated that Robert had started turning Walter against Douglas. Walter had approximately $80,000 in a joint checking account with Douglas that was intended to help pay for Walter's future care. Douglas and Peggy discovered that Walter had written approximately $40,000 worth of checks from the joint account to Robert, one of which had been used to purchase Robert a vehicle. Thereafter, Douglas removed the $39,000 from the joint account and placed the money in an account solely in his name to prevent Walter from giving more money to Robert. Douglas and Robert separately petitioned an Alabama Probate Court seeking letters of guardianship and conservatorship over Walter. It appeared from the record that Walter once had a will that made Douglas the primary beneficiary of his estate. However, on December 11, 2013, Walter executed a new will ("the 2013 will") naming Robert as the executor and sole beneficiary of his estate. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed judgment in favor of Douglas, finding the 2013 will had been prepared by an attorney who had previously represented Robert, and Robert accompanied Walter to the attorney's office on the day the will was executed. Approximately one month after the 2013 will was executed, the probate court entered an order finding that Walter lacked the mental capacity to handle his affairs and appointed a permanent conservator for Walter. "Based on the foregoing, we cannot say that the circuit court erred in entering a judgment on the jury's verdict in favor of Douglas in the will contest." View "Dill v. Dill" on Justia Law

The issue in this appeal concerned a dispute among stepsiblings over the remnant of their parents’ estates, which consisted of approximately 26 acres of real property in Canyon County, Idaho. Alva and Thelma Garrett married in 1976, creating a blended family consisting of Alva’s four children and Thelma’s three children. They later executed reciprocal wills which, upon the death of the first spouse, left all of their property to the survivor. They also signed a contract in which they agreed that upon the death of the surviving spouse, the survivor’s remaining property would be divided among the seven children in equal shares. When Alva died, Thelma created a living trust and conveyed certain real property into the name of the trust. Upon Thelma’s death, the real property in trust was distributed to Thelma’s daughter, Cynthia Swartz, and her husband, James Swartz. Thelma’s estate was never probated. Several years later, Alva’s Children sued the Swartzes, the trust, and “the Estate of Thelma V. Garrett”, alleging that Thelma had breached the terms of the will contract. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Swartzes, holding that Thelma’s conveyance of the real property to the trust did not breach the contract. The district court also awarded the Swartzes attorney fees. Alva’s Children timely appealed. The Idaho Supreme Court found that Alva's children's claim was precluded by state law: "Although the merits of this case center on whether Thelma breached the Will Contract, we do not reach the merits of the breach of contract claim on appeal because we conclude that this case was brought in violation of Idaho Code section 15-3-104. Thus, we can affirm the district court’s decision on alternate grounds." View "Martin v. Garrett Living Trust" on Justia Law

This case was one of many "disagreements" about the control of the multi-million-dollar estate of Thomas Tedesco. Plaintiff-respondent Laura White was one of Thomas’s three biological daughters and a cotrustee of his living trust. Defendant-appellant Debra Wear (aka Debbie Basara Wear) was one of Thomas’s stepdaughters. In 2013, Thomas suffered serious health issues, which resulted in significant cognitive impairment, leaving him susceptible to being unduly influenced by anyone close to him. Gloria Tedesco, Thomas’s second wife, began denying White and her sisters access to their father, causing him to believe that they were stealing from him. Wear assisted Gloria, her mother, in unduly influencing Thomas via contacting, or facilitating access to, attorneys in order to change Thomas’s estate plan to disinherit his biological family in favor of Gloria and her family. In 2015, a permanent conservator of Thomas’s estate was appointed. Despite the existence of the conservatorship, Wear continued to assist Gloria in taking actions to unduly influence Thomas to change his 30-plus-year estate plan. Consequently, upon White’s petition, the superior court issued an elder abuse restraining order (EARO), restraining Wear for three years from, among other things, financially abusing Thomas, contacting him (either directly or indirectly), facilitating any change to his estate plan, coming within 100 yards of him, and possessing any guns, other firearms, and ammunition. Wear contended the EARO was void because: (1) the judge was disqualified; and (2) he violated due process by substantially amending the allegations in the petition and prohibiting her from possessing firearms and ammunition. She further claimed the petition failed to state a cause of action for elder financial abuse. The Court of Appeal agreed the court erred in including a firearms and ammunition restriction in the EARO and directed the trial court to strike it. Otherwise, the Court affirmed. View "White v. Wear" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a technical defect in personal service on a ward does not drive the probate court of subject-matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction over the ward where the ward is personally served and participates in the proceedings through counsel without objection.Petitioner, the daughter of Mauricette and James Fairley, asked the Supreme Court to void all orders entered in a guardianship proceeding in which Mauricette acted as James's guardian for the final three years of his life. Specifically, Petitioner alleged that personal service on her father by a private process server was insufficient to vest jurisdiction in the probate court because Chapter 1051 of the Estates Code requires a proposed ward to personally be served by a sheriff, constable, or other elected officeholder. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Petitioner failed to establish that any deficiency with respect to the method of personal service rose to the level of a violation of due process. View "In re Guardianship of Fairley" on Justia Law

The co-trustees and a beneficiary of the trust filed petitions under Probate Code section 850 alleging that defendant misappropriated trust assets and committed elder abuse against the trustor. The litigants settled and the guardian ad litem for defendant's minor children entered into an agreement with the co-trustees and certain trust beneficiaries, but not defendant (the first GAL agreement). Defendant and the children subsequently challenge the trial court's orders (1) enforcing the oral settlement agreement; (2) granting the GAL's petition to approve the second GAL agreement; (3) appointing the GAL as the children's guardian ad litem in certain probate cases; and (4) denying defendant's motion to remove the GAL as the children's guardian ad litem.In the published portion of the opinion, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's orders and concluded that defendant failed to establish procedural and substantive unconscionability. The court rejected the argument that the GAL lacked capacity to make a contract in Jacqueline's name. The court also concluded that the trial court did not err by determining that defendant is precluded from repudiating the agreement because her objection is inconsistent with the children's interests. Furthermore, the court rejected the children's contention that they disaffirmed the settlement agreement and the second GAL agreement when they filed their repudiations of the agreements. Finally, the court concluded that there was no conflict of interest and thus no error in denying defendant's motion to remove the GAL as guardian ad litem. View "Chui v. Chui" on Justia Law

Mary and Sal were married and had a daughter. Sal also had children from prior marriages. In 2006, Mary and Sal created a trust; each amendment to that trust was notarized. In 2017, they revoked the trust and created a new trust, which provided that upon Sal’s death, the property “shall be distributed equally among” his children. The trust mandates that “[a]ny amendment, revocation, or termination . . . shall be made by written instrument signed, with signature acknowledged by a notary public, by the trustor(s) making the revocation, amendment, or termination, and delivered to the trustee.” Mary alleged that in 2020, Sal executed a “First Amendment,” striking the provision that distributed the property amongst the children; it is not notarized. Sal died the next day.The probate court deemed the alleged amendment “null and void,” concluding it was invalid under Probate Code section 154021 because the trust mandated that any amendment be acknowledged by a notary public. The court of appeal affirmed. When a trust specifies a method of amendment — regardless of whether the method of amendment is exclusive or permissive, and regardless of whether the trust provides for identical or different methods of amendment and revocation — section 15402 provides no basis for validating an amendment that was not executed in compliance with that method. View "Balistreri v. Balistreri" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting attorney fees in this guardianship case where the guardian requested the protected person's estate to pay attorney fees, holding that the award was proper and that the court acted within its discretion in setting the amount of the award.The fees at issue stemmed from a period in 2019 when Donna Simmons and Robyn Friedman served as temporary co-guardians for their mother, Kathleen June Jones. The district court formally discharged Donna and Robyn upon the appointment of Kimberly Jones as general guardian. Donna and Robyn sought attorney fees payable from Jones's estate. The district court granted the request. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the award was proper because the district court applied the relevant Nev. Rev. Stat. 159.344 factors and reasonably found that Donna and Robyn's complex temporary guardianship warranted compensation; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of fees to award. View "In re Guardianship of Jones" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court declaring that the Estate of Nannie Wethington had no dower right pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. 392.020 in $38,500 withdrawn from the bank account of her husband, James Wethington, by their son, Kerry Wethington, two days prior to James' death, holding that the lower courts failed to apply controlling precedent.In Kentucky, a widow has an absolute estate to one-half of the personalty of her deceased widow's estate. In this instant case, the circuit court found that James made a valid inter vivos gift to Kerry and that Nannie had no dower right to the $38,500 withdrawn from James's bank account. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the gift of $38,500 was presumptively fraudulent, and the evidence conclusively proved the presumption. The Court remanded the case with instructions that Nannie's estate be distributed the amount of the gift which would satisfy her fifty percent statutory share. View "Simpson v. Wethington" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the probate court appointing the decedent's mother as personal representative, ordering that letters of personal representative be issued to her, and issuing such letters even though the mother had not yet accepted the appointment, holding that the court's issuance of letters was an unauthorized action.More than three years following the decedent's death, the estate was opened for the purpose of serving a lawsuit against the decedent. The court appointed the mother as personal representative for the purpose of receiving service of the civil action and, that same day, issued letters of personal representative to the mother even though the mother had not accepted the appointment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the issuance of letters of personal representative was an unauthorized action without the appointee's qualification. View "In re Estate of Severson" on Justia Law