Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court in these appeals regarding two brothers' disputes concerning the administration of their deceased mother's estate, holding that the circuit court did not err in removing both brother from their fiduciary roles and replacing them with a disinterested third party.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in removing the brothers as co-executors on the basis that the brothers were, to the detriment of the estate, deadlocked concerning the administration of the estate; (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the brothers compensation, legal fees, and costs; and (3) there was no reversible error regarding the presence of a third brother in the courtroom during the trial. View "Galiotos v. Galiotos" on Justia Law

Nora D. was an 82-year-old woman residing in an assisted living facility. She suffered a stroke in April 2016, and she reportedly continued to suffer resulting physical and mental limitations. In 2017 Nora gave her son, Cliff, a general power of attorney. In 2018 Adult Protective Services petitioned for a conservatorship to protect Nora’s finances and property after the office received reports of harm alleging that Cliff had made decisions not in Nora’s best interests. The Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) was appointed as Nora’s conservator in 2018. In September 2019 Nora’s daughter Naomi petitioned for a full guardianship for Nora. Naomi alleged that a guardianship was necessary because Nora was unable to attend to her own physical needs and Cliff was unable to care for Nora. A day later Naomi’s son Kevin petitioned for review of the conservatorship, and sought appointment as Nora’s guardian, which could replace OPA’s conservatorship. The superior court ordered a Nora attend a psychiatric evaluation and answer all questions posed to her by Kevin’s retained expert. But the guardianship statute provided that a respondent may refuse to answer questions during examinations and evaluations. The only exception to that statute applied in an interview to determine whether the respondent has capacity to make informed decisions about care and treatment services. The Alaska Supreme Court granted the Nora’s petition for review to consider the scope of the statute’s protection, and the Supreme Court concluded that Nora could refuse to answer any questions other than those directed at determining her capacity to make personal medical decisions. The Supreme Court therefore vacated the superior court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. View "In the Matter of the Protective Proceeings of Nora D." on Justia Law

Consolidated appeals involved a dispute between Cortney Brooks and her brother Chad Svenby about the administration of the estate of their deceased mother Dorothy Clare. In appeal no. 1190405, Brooks challenged a circuit court order removing the original administrator of the estate. After the circuit court appointed Svenby to be the executor of the estate and granted his motion to enter a final settlement, Brooks filed appeal no. 1191037 contesting that settlement. After review, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded Brooks established the circuit court erred: (1) by removing Colley as the administrator of Clare's estate; and (2) by entering an order approving a final settlement of Clare's estate. Accordingly, the circuit court was directed on remand to vacate those orders and to reinstall Colley as the duly appointed administrator with the will annexed of Clare's estate. View "Brooks v. Svenby" on Justia Law

The Supreme reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court dismissing a will contestant's lawsuit for lack of standing, holding that because the contestant did not rebut the evidence established by the will's proponent the the contestant accepted benefits under the will to which she was not otherwise legally entitled, the trial court properly dismissed the contest.Before his death, Dempsey Johnson executed a will devising his estate through specific bequests and leaving the residuary to his three daughters, including Tia MacNerland. After Johnson died, MacNerland sued the estate's executor seeking to set aside Johnson's will on the grounds that he was unduly influenced when he executed the will. The trial court dismissed the will contest for lack of standing under the acceptance-of-benefits doctrine. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the executor failed to demonstrate that MacNerland accepted greater benefits than those to which she was entitled under the will or intestacy laws. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because MacNerland accepted benefits under Johnson's will, the trial court properly dismissed her challenge to the will's validity. View "In re Estate of Johnson" on Justia Law

In this appeal arising out of a suit to impeach a will the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying a plea in bar, holding that if the circuit court erred in denying the plea in bar, any error was harmless.Ten days before the decedent's death, Robert Machen, a lawyer who had befriended the decedent, presented the decedent with copies of a will he had drafted for her signature. The decedent signed the will, which contained a no-contest clause providing that the decedent's family members would get nothing from the estate if they contested the will. All family members except David Williams signed a release form. Williams then brought this suit to impeach the will. Machen filed a plea in bar asserting that Williams lacked standing to sue. The circuit court denied the plea in bar and held that the will and been procured by undue influence and fraud. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that any error in denying the plea in bar as to Williams was harmless. View "Machen v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in favor of the Estate of Everett Joseph Hopkins in the Estate's action to declare a warranty deed null and void for failure of delivery, holding that the trial justice did not err or abuse her discretion.The trial justice determined that the warranty deed was void for failure of delivery because Everett did not intend to surrender control of and completely divest himself of title to the property. The trial justice further found that the deed was not accepted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice properly determined that the executed warranty deed was void for failure of delivery and acceptance. View "Estate of Everett Joseph Hopkins v. Hopkins" on Justia Law

Ann Langford appealed a trial court judgment in favor of Harriett Broussard regarding the administration of an estate and the sale and division of real property. Mary Walker Taylor died in January 1998 leaving a will that appointed two of her daughters, Ann and Harriett, as coexecutors. The coexecutors petitioned to have the will admitted to probate. The sisters filed a waiver of notice in which they each accepted service of notice of the filing of the petition for the probate of the will and waived further notice of the proceedings. The record reflected no other action was taken in the probate court with respect to the administration of the estate. In October 2017, Harriett petitioned to, among other things, remove the administration of the estate from the probate court to the trial court. In her petition, Harriett sought either the sale for division of certain real property or, if the trial court determined that any of the real property was "heirs property," the partition by sale. The trial court granted Harriett’s request, removing the administration of the estate from the probate court and allowing the sale. Ann responded to Harriett’s petition denying the real property could not be equitably partitioned, and asserted the real property could not be sold or divided. Finding, however, that the trial court did not err with respect to the sale and division of the estate property, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed judgment. View "Langford v. Broussard" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jeremy K. Hon appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Kevin Duane Hon, individually and as trustee of the Jeremy K. Hon Irrevocable Family Trust ("the Trust"), Emily Louise Hon Castellanos, and Jason Jeremy Hon. Jeremy K. Hon and Lynda L.B. Hon were married and had three children -- Kevin Duane Hon, Emily Louise Hon Castellanos, and Jason Jeremy Hon. In 2012, plaintiff signed an agreement creating the Trust. Over time, plaintiff transferred assets to the Trust, including his and Lynda's principal Alabama residence; a condominium in New York; his 50% interest in L&L Enterprises LLC; and over $1,000,000 in cash and securities. Lynda died in 2017, and Kevin succeeded her as the sole trustee of the Trust. In 2018, plaintiff filed a complaint against Kevin, individually and as trustee of the Trust, Emily, and Jason seeking rescission of the Trust agreement. Plaintiff alleged he had signed the Trust agreement based on "his mistaken understanding of the effects thereof"; that he had "transferred assets to the Trust based on his mistaken understanding of the effects of the Trust Agreement"; and that, "due to mistake, the Trust Agreement does not accomplish his intent." He also alleged that he had paid amounts on behalf of the Trust that "the Trust, in equity and good conscience, should be required to repay" to him and that the Trust "has received and retained an improper benefit ... and has been unjustly enriched." The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, finding plaintiff did not present any evidence to establish that Lynda had engaged in any fraudulent or inequitable conduct that resulted in his alleged misunderstanding, and he did not present any evidence indicating that Lynda had been aware of his alleged misunderstanding. Also, the plaintiff did not present substantial evidence to establish that the mistake was not mixed with his own negligence. “Rather, by his own testimony, the plaintiff admitted that he did not read the Trust agreement before he signed it; that he might have skimmed the Trust agreement; that he did not ask Burwell any questions about the provisions of the Trust; and that he instead relied on comments made by his business partner about the effects of his own separate trust.” View "Hon v. The Jeremy K. Hon Irrevocable Family Trust, et al." on Justia Law

Irvin Shell, as administrator of the estate of Annie Ruth Peterson, deceased ("the estate"), appealed separate summary judgments entered in favor of Montgomery-municipal jail employees Terri Butcher and Shayla Payne, respectively, on the basis of State-agent immunity. Annie Peterson was arrested for driving under the influence "of any substance" and transported to the municipal jail. Peterson was not actually under the influence of an intoxicating substance at the time of her arrest; rather, she was suffering from a hemorrhagic stroke. She remained in jail overnight; when jail officers went to retrieve Peterson from her cell, she was weak, “drowsy” and appeared ill. This information was relayed to a jail nurse; the nurse in turn contacted a doctor, who instructed jail staff to transport Peterson to the emergency room. After the bonding process was complete, Peterson was released to a family member who transported Peterson to a local hospital where she was diagnosed with having suffered a stroke; she died three days later on April 16, 2013. The estate sued Butcher and Payne in their individual capacities, alleging that they had been negligent and wanton in failing to obtain medical care for Peterson in a timely manner. The Alabama Supreme Court determined the estate did not demonstrate the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of Butcher and Payne based on State-agent immunity. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgments were affirmed. View "Shell v. Butcher" on Justia Law

Susan Turner appealed a probate court judgment admitting the will of Johnny B. Turner to probate and granting letters testamentary to Lana Rogers. Susan argued the probate court violated the "clearly mandatory language of Sections 43-8-190 and 43-8-198" when it did not transfer her will contest, which was commenced before the will was admitted to probate, to the circuit court. The Alabama Supreme Court found the probate court had no authority to do anything other than timely refer the contest to the circuit court once the contest was filed. The probate court’s judgment was vacated and the appeal dismissed. View "Turner v. Estate of Johnny B. Turner" on Justia Law