Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

In 2001, Lavastone Capital LLC (Lavastone) entered into an agreement with Coventry First LLC (Coventry) to purchase “life settlements” – life-insurance policies sold on the secondary market. One was that of Beverly Berland. Lincoln Financial (Lincoln) issued the policy to Berland in 2006. But Berland did not act alone in acquiring it. A few months before, she approached a business called “Simba.” As Simba pitched it, the transaction allowed clients to “create dollars today by using a paper asset, (a life insurance policy not yet issued from a major insurance carrier insuring your life)” by selling it on the secondary market. Clients did not need to put up any money upfront. Instead, they got nonrecourse loans to finance the transactions, which allowed them to make all necessary payments without tapping into personal funds. The only collateral for the loan was the life-insurance policy itself. Berland agreed to participate in several transactions with Simba, profiting greatly. Lavastone kept the policy in force, paying all relevant premiums to Lincoln Financial. Upon Berland’s death more than seven years later, Lincoln paid Lavastone $5,041,032.06 in death benefits under the policy. In December 2018, Berland’s estate filed a complaint against Lavastone in the District Court, seeking to recover the death benefits that Lavastone received under 18 Del C. 2704(b). In 2020, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In 2021, the District Court certified the three questions of law to the Delaware Supreme Court. The Supreme Court responded: (1) a death-benefit payment made on a policy that is void ab initio under 18 Del. C. 2704(a) and PHL Variable Insurance Co. v. Price Dawe 2006 Insurance Trust was made “under [a] contract” within the meaning of 18 Del. C. 2704(b); (2) so long as the use of nonrecourse funding did not allow the insured or his or her trust to obtain the policy “without actually paying the premiums” and the insured or his or her trust procured or effected the policy in good faith, for a lawful insurance purpose, and not as a cover for a wagering contract; and (3) an estate could profit under 18 Del. C. 2704(b) where the policy was procured in part by fraud on the part of the decedent and the decedent profited from the previous sale of the policy, if the recipient of the policy benefits cannot establish that it was a victim of the fraud. View "Lavastone Capital LLC v. Estate of Beverly E. Berland" on Justia Law

An apprentice electrician, who was unmarried and had no dependents, was working for a construction project subcontractor when she died in an accident. Her direct employer paid funeral benefits required by the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act; no other benefits were required under the Act. The employee’s estate brought a wrongful death action against the general contractor and the building owner; they moved to dismiss the action based on the Act’s exclusive liability provisions, which were expanded in 2004 to include contractors and project owners. The estate moved for summary judgment, arguing that the 2004 exclusive liability expansion violated due process because it left the estate without an effective remedy. The court rejected the estate’s argument and dismissed the wrongful death action, entering judgment against the estate. Finding no reversible error, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgment. View "Burke v. Criterion General Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Mary and James Nelson, a married couple with daughters, formed Longspar limited partnership in 2008; each had a 0.5% general partner interest. The limited partners were Mary and trusts that had been established for their daughters. The Nelsons also formed a trust in 2008. Mary was the settlor, James was the trustee. James and the daughters were the beneficiaries. In 2008-2009, Mary transferred her Longspar limited partner interests to the trust in a gift (valued at $2,096,000.00) and then a sale for $20,000,000. An accountant valued a 1% Longspar limited partner interest at $341,000. The Nelsons used that value to convert the dollar values in the transfer agreements to percentages of limited partner interests—6.14% for the gift and 58.65% for the sale. Those percentages were then listed on Longspar’s records, included in Longspar’s amended partnership agreement, and listed on the Nelsons’ gift tax returns.The IRS audited the Nelsons’ tax returns. The Nelsons amended their records and reallocated previous distributions. The Commissioner issued Notices of Deficiency listing $611,708 in gift tax for 2008 and $6,123,168 for 2009. The Tax Court found that the proper valuation of a 1% Longspar limited partner interest was $411,235; the transfer documents' language was not a valid formula clause that could support reallocation; Mary had transferred the percentage of interests that the appraiser had determined to have the values stated in the transfer documents; those percentages were fixed once the appraisal was completed. The Fifth Circuit affirmed; the Nelsons each owed $87,942 in gift tax for 2008 and $920,340 for 2009. View "Nelson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's appeal from an order entered by the Marion County Commission declaring the holographic will of Oras Dye to be void and rescinding Petitioner's appointment as the executor of the Estate of Oras Dye, holding that the circuit court erred.On appeal, Petitioner argued that the fiduciary supervisor and the county commission lacked statutory authority investigate the validity of the will and unilaterally to declare it void after the will had been admitted to probate. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) the judiciary supervisor lacked authority to investigate the validity of the will, which had already been admitted to probate; and (2) the county commission lacked authority to revoke the will's prior admission to probate. View "Dye v. County Commission of Marion County" on Justia Law

Henry H. Behle IV appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Darren Harr as the personal representative of the Estate of Henry L. Behle. The district court held Behle’s claims against the Estate concerning two parcels of real estate were untimely under N.D.C.C. 30.1-19-03(2), which barred certain claims that were not brought within three months of a decedent’s death. The court also held Behle’s claim to personal property was barred by the six-year statute of limitations for conversion under N.D.C.C. 28-01-16. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Behle v. Harr" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the order and judgment of the circuit court enforcing a settlement agreement, holding that the Statute of Frauds was applicable in this case.After a dispute over an alleged forgery in a will, the parties reached a mediation agreement as to certain property. The trial court adopted the mediation agreement as part of its judgment and ordered it to be enforced. The court of appeals appealed, ruling that the Statute of Frauds was not applicable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Statute of Frauds was applicable, barring enforcement of the agreement. View "Adamson v. Adamson" on Justia Law

Petitioner Estate of Peter Dodier, appealed a New Hampshire Compensation Appeals Board (CAB) order denying the estate’s claim for workers’ compensation and death benefits following Peter Dodier’s death. The CAB denied the estate’s claim based on its determination that Dodier’s anxiety and depression were not a compensable injury. It therefore did not reach the issue of death benefits. Because the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded that Dodier’s anxiety and depression were compensable, it reversed the CAB’s decision and remanded for its consideration of whether the estate was entitled to death benefits. View "Appeal of Estate of Peter Dodier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting demurrers as to all claims filed by John Mark Rohrbaugh Sr.'s daughter seeking both an equitable and a statutory accounting from her brother in his former capacity as an agent managing their father's financial affairs pursuant to a power of attorney (POA) and in his current capacity as co-executor of their father's estate, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff brought this complaint against John Mark Rohrbaugh Jr. in both his individual capacity and in his capacity as a co-executor of the Rohrbaugh Sr. estate requesting a statutory accounting from Rohrbaugh Jr. concerning his actions pursuant to his father's POA and requesting an equitable accounting. The circuit court granted the demurrers to the complaint and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err when it dismissed on demurrer Plaintiff's equitable and statutory accounting claims. View "Phillips v. Rohrbaugh" on Justia Law

In 2006, Rose Rellick (decedent) purchased two certificates of deposit ("CDs") listing as co-owners herself, her sister appellee Betty Rellick, and the daughters of her deceased brother George, appellee Kimberly Vasil and appellant Sharleen Rellick-Smith. Prior to purchasing the CDs, Decedent executed powers of attorney designating Betty and Kimberly as her attorneys-in-fact. It purportedly was Decedent’s intention that, upon her death, the proceeds of the CDs be divided equally among Appellant and Appellees. However, prior to Decedent’s death, Appellees removed Appellant’s name from the CDs. In March 2013, subsequent to Decedent’s death, Appellees cashed the CDs, which were worth approximately $370,000, and divided the money between the two of them. In 2014, Appellant filed an action against Appellees, claiming they breached their fiduciary duties to Decedent by removing Appellant’s name from the CDs and refusing to pay her any of the proceeds. Appellees filed a timely response to the complaint, but, relevant to this appeal, did not raise any affirmative defenses therein. Four months later, Appellees moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Appellant lacked standing and that her claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Appellees’ motion was ultimately granted on the basis that Appellant lacked standing. Notably, however, the trial judge determined that Appellees waived the statute of limitations defense by failing to raise it as a new matter in their answer, as required by Pa.R.C.P. 1030(a). The issue this case presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review was whether the Superior Court erred in affirming an order of the trial court that permitted the appellees to file an amended answer to include the affirmative defense of statute of limitations, which a different trial court judge previously ruled was waived. The Supreme Court concluded the second trial judge’s order violated the coordinate jurisdiction rule in this regard, thus the Superior Court erred in affirming the second court's order. The Superior Court decision was reversed, the trial judge's order vacated in part, and the matter remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Rellick-Smith v. Rellick, et al." on Justia Law

The Heitings’ Revocable Trust, administered by BMO, filed no tax returns; the Heitings reported its gains and losses on their returns. With respect to two stocks, BMO had no discretionary power to take any action, including any sale or purchase of the stock. Nonetheless, in 2015 BMO sold the restricted stock, incurring a taxable gain of $5,643,067.50. The Heitings included that gain on their 2015 personal tax return. BMO subsequently realized that the sale was prohibited, and in 2016, purchased shares of the restricted stock with the proceeds from the earlier transaction.The Heitlings sought to invoke the claim of right doctrine. 26 U.S.C. 1341 to claim a deduction on their 2016 return: A taxpayer must report income in the year in which it was received, even if the taxpayer could later be required to return the income but would then be entitled to a deduction in the repayment year; alternatively, taxpayers may recompute their taxes for the year of receipt of the income. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Heitings’ suit. Under section 1341(a)(2), the Heitings had to show that the repayment occurred because “it was established after the close of such prior taxable year" that the taxpayer "did not have an unrestricted right to such item.” It was not established that the Trust did not have an unrestricted right to the income item. The Heitlings never challenged the purchase or sale of the restricted stock. View "Heiting v. United States" on Justia Law