Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

The case involves the trustees of the Stanley and Sandra Goldberg Trusts, C. Leon Nelson and Marilynn Tetrick, who hired legal counsel to assist them in their duties. The same attorneys later defended them in a lawsuit brought by several beneficiaries of the trusts. The jury found that the trustees had breached their fiduciary duties, and the district court entered a judgment against them, most of which was payable to the trusts. The court then removed the trustees and appointed successor trustees. The former trustees, still represented by the same attorneys, asked the court to reduce the amount of the judgment against them. The successor trustees moved to disqualify the former trustees’ attorneys, arguing that a conflict had surfaced under rule 1.9(a) of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct. The district court agreed and disqualified the attorneys.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah reversed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that an attorney-client relationship does not automatically arise merely because an attorney represents a trustee. In this case, the attorneys represented the former trustees only, not the trusts, which were not named in the suit. Thus, because the attorneys never represented the trusts in the litigation, rule 1.9(a) does not prevent the attorneys from continuing to represent the former trustees. View "In re Estate of Goldberg" on Justia Law

This case involves a conservatorship dispute over Susan Davis Malone. Two attorneys involved in the case filed two motions requesting the trial judge to recuse himself. The first recusal motion was denied and affirmed on appeal. The second recusal motion was also denied. The attorneys then filed a second petition for recusal appeal, arguing that trial court orders entered after the Court of Appeals issued its opinion in the first recusal appeal, but before the mandate issued, are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.The Court of Appeals agreed with the attorneys and held that the orders were void. The counterpetitioners and co-conservators then filed an accelerated application for permission to appeal in the Supreme Court of Tennessee.The Supreme Court of Tennessee granted the application and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The court held that the stay imposed by the Court of Appeals in the first recusal appeal did not divest the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The court also held that the attorneys waived any other argument that orders entered by the trial court should be vacated because they were entered prior to issuance of the mandate. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision. View "In Re Conservatorship of Malone" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over a Major Land Use Permit issued to Susan Dietz, individually and as Trustee of G&M Trust (G&M), by Flathead County, Montana. G&M had purchased two adjacent 11.5-acre tracts on the shore of Lake Five and began several remodeling, demolition, and construction projects on both tracts. G&M received notices of multiple violations from both the Department of Environmental Quality and Flathead County, advising that these new structures violated local zoning regulations. G&M then submitted an application proposing new structures for short-term/vacation nightly rentals. The application was initially accepted by the County, who issued a Major Land Use Permit, later voided by the District Court.The District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, Flathead County, voided the Major Land Use Permit issued to G&M, permanently enjoined all future construction or expansion of use or conversion of G&M’s property to any commercial use without first obtaining legal access and complying with all State and local statutes and regulations, ordered restoration of G&M’s property to its previously unaltered condition, and awarded attorney fees and costs to Friends of Lake Five, Inc. (FLF).The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the District Court's decision to void the Major Land Use Permit and its award of attorney fees and grant of permanent injunction. However, it reversed the District Court's requirement that G&M restore the property to its previous unaltered condition outside of the lakeshore zone. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Friends of Lake 5 v. County Commission" on Justia Law

The case involves the Mabel Amos Memorial Fund, a charitable trust established to provide financial assistance to beneficiaries seeking higher education. The plaintiffs, Megan Carmack and Leigh Gulley Manning, individually and on behalf of Carmack's minor children, and Tyra Lindsey, a minor, represented by her mother and guardian, alleged that the trustee and board members of the trust breached their fiduciary duties. They sought to remove the trustee and board members, appoint new ones, and restore the allegedly misappropriated assets of the trust. The Montgomery Circuit Court appointed a special master under Rule 53, Ala. R. Civ. P., and Attorney General Steve Marshall, who was added as a party to the underlying actions, petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to vacate its order appointing a special master.The Supreme Court of Alabama granted Marshall's petitions and ordered the circuit court to vacate its order referring the cases to a special master. The court found that the circuit court exceeded its discretion in referring all matters in these cases to a special master. The court noted that the referral of matters to be tried without a jury did not indicate that an "exceptional condition" necessitated the referral, and the referral of the accounting did not indicate that the accounting would prove complicated in some way. Even if the accounting was properly referred to a special master, the referral of an accounting does not justify the referral of all the other matters in the cases. View "Ex parte Marshall" on Justia Law

Nella Ruth Braswell passed away in 2014, leaving behind an estate valued at over $2,000,000, 6 cats, and 13 dogs. In her will, she provided for the care of her animals until their death, with the remaining funds to be given to The Humane Society of the United States. The Jefferson Probate Court accepted her will and appointed Marion Kristen McLeroy as the personal representative of the estate. However, The Humane Society became dissatisfied with McLeroy's management of the estate and had the estate proceeding removed from the probate court to the Jefferson Circuit Court. McLeroy objected to this move, but the circuit court refused to relinquish the case.The Humane Society and McLeroy had a working relationship initially, but it deteriorated over time. The Humane Society requested deeds to all the property Braswell had owned, as well as a formal accounting of both the estate and the Animal Trust. The Humane Society also asked the circuit court to remove McLeroy and her husband as cotrustees of the Animal Trust and to order them to reimburse the Animal Trust for any losses caused by their alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and found that once a probate court begins the final-settlement process for an estate, a circuit court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the administration of that estate. Therefore, when the probate court began the final-settlement process for Braswell's estate, the Humane Society's right to remove the proceeding to the circuit court was cut off. The Supreme Court of Alabama granted McLeroy's petition and issued a writ directing the circuit court to vacate its order consolidating the estate proceeding with the Humane Society's other action against McLeroy and her husband and to enter an order remanding the administration of Braswell's estate to the probate court. View "Ex parte McLeroy" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the estate of Merle Almer, who passed away in 2016. Almer owned a construction business and a farm, and his will named his daughter, Linda Moe, as the personal representative. The will contained bequests to various individuals, including a life estate in the farm and farming assets to Casey Almer, Merle Almer's grandson. The will also directed the personal representative to use harvested and unharvested grain to pay costs of administration and taxes for the estate. However, at the time of Merle Almer's death, the grain discovered in his grain bins was less than expected, leading to a dispute between the personal representative and Casey Almer.The dispute led to a lawsuit, where the personal representative accused Almer of conversion of grain and other farm assets. Almer counterclaimed with allegations of conversion and breach of fiduciary duty. The counterclaims were dismissed, and a jury found that Almer did not convert property. Almer then filed a petition alleging that the personal representative breached her fiduciary duties. The district court heard testimony and took evidence over five days.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the personal representative did not breach her fiduciary duties while administering the estate. The court also found that the will's abatement provisions were ambiguous due to the will's nonstandard use of the term "specific devise." The court made findings concerning the testator's intent based on testimony from the attorney who prepared the will. The court denied Almer's application for surcharge, granted the personal representative's motion to approve final distribution, and approved approximately $760,000 in attorney’s fees. Almer appealed, challenging the court's interpretation of the will, the court’s findings concerning the personal representative’s conduct during administration, and the court’s approval of attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "In re Estate of Almer" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over the will of Richard D. Janssen, who had six children: Dean, Sheryl, Debra, Jeff, Larry, and Gary. Richard and his wife Melva owned three parcels of farmland, which they held as tenants-in-common. Over the years, they executed several "mirror image" wills, with the final one in 2014 leaving the farmland to Larry and Gary, $60,000 each to Dean, Jeff, and Debra, and nothing to Sheryl. After Melva's death in 2017, Richard, upset about the terms of his 2014 will, drafted a new will in 2018 with the help of his daughter Sheryl. This will left his one-half interest in each of the farm properties to Debra and Sheryl, and the remainder of his estate would be equally divided between Larry, Gary, Sheryl, and Debra. Richard passed away in June 2018.After Richard's 2018 will was admitted to probate, Dean, Larry, Gary, and Jeff filed a petition for will contest against Sheryl, Debra, and Security National Bank, seeking to set aside Richard’s 2018 will based on lack of testamentary capacity or undue influence exercised by their sisters. The first trial ended in a hung jury. Before the second trial, Gary and Larry sought dismissal of all claims against Debra. The second trial resulted in a verdict in favor of Larry and Gary, concluding that Sheryl had unduly influenced Richard in drafting his 2018 will and that her tortious interference caused actual damages to Larry and Gary in the amount of $480,000.After the verdict, the district court granted Sheryl’s posttrial motion to dismiss for lack of an indispensable party (Debra), ordering a new trial instead of dismissal. Larry and Gary appealed this decision, arguing that Debra's dismissal did not entitle Sheryl to a new trial where section 633.312’s joinder requirement was satisfied.The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the district court's decision, holding that when a party, once joined and actively participating in a will contest, affirmatively agrees to be dismissed from the lawsuit without objection from any other party, section 633.312 has been satisfied and does not prevent their dismissal. The court remanded the case for the district court to address any unresolved issues in the pending posttrial motions and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Janssen v. The Security National Bank of Sioux City" on Justia Law

A dispute arose over whether a transfer of property from a family corporation to a trust constituted a "change in ownership" under California's Proposition 13, which would trigger a reassessment of the property's value for tax purposes. The Los Angeles County Assessor determined that the transfer did constitute a change in ownership because the transfer eliminated the interests of individual shareholders who held nonvoting stock in the corporation. The Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Board reversed this decision, asserting that the beneficial interest in the corporation's real property was held by the persons who controlled the corporation through its voting stock. The Superior Court granted a petition by the assessor to vacate the Appeals Board's decision, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court's decision.The Supreme Court of California affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision. The court held that the term "ownership interests" in the relevant statute, Revenue and Taxation Code section 62, subdivision (a)(2), refers to beneficial ownership interests in real property, not interests in a legal entity. For a corporation, these beneficial ownership interests are measured by all corporate stock, not just voting stock. The court rejected the argument that the term "stock" in section 62, subdivision (a)(2) must be interpreted to mean voting stock. The court concluded that the transfer of the properties from the corporation to the trust resulted in a change in ownership because the proportional beneficial ownership interests in the properties did not remain the same before and after the transfer. View "Prang v. Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Board" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between two sisters, Sarah Plott Key (Key) and Elizabeth Plott Tyler (Tyler), over the enforcement of a "no contest" clause in a 1999 trust established by their parents. The trust had a lengthy appellate history with three prior appeals concerning the same trust. Key filed a petition in probate court to disinherit her sister, Tyler, based on the "no contest" clause in the trust. Tyler had previously defended a 2007 amendment to the trust, which was found to have been procured through undue influence.Previously, the probate court had granted Tyler's anti-SLAPP motion, concluding that Tyler had not directly contested the trust as she had only defended the 2007 amendment. However, this was reversed on appeal, with the appellate court holding that Tyler's defense of the 2007 amendment constituted a direct contest of the trust.On remand, Tyler raised a new issue: whether the lack of a no contest clause in a 2003 amendment to the trust meant that her share of the assets distributed under the terms of that amendment were exempt from forfeiture. The trial court agreed with Tyler, concluding that her share of the assets was exempt from forfeiture.However, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District disagreed with the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the plain language of the original trust's no contest provision required that if Tyler lacked probable cause to contest the trust, she must be disinherited. The court found that Tyler's share of the trust's residual monetary assets was not exempt from forfeiture simply because her specific share was specified by a subsequent amendment that did not contain a no contest clause. The court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Key v. Tyler" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the estate of Linda C. Giguere, who passed away in 2021. Her will, dated 2013, nominated her husband, William Giguere, as the personal representative and established a trust for his benefit if she predeceased him. The will also stated that upon William's death, the remaining balance would be paid to his children. However, the will did not provide for the disposition of Linda’s residuary estate if William predeceased her, which he did in 2015. Linda did not execute a new will after William’s death. The will also explicitly stated that Linda's estranged daughter, Hilary Barlow, was to receive nothing.In the Cumberland County Probate Court, Hilary Barlow filed an application for the informal appointment of a personal representative of her mother’s estate. The court appointed Hilary as personal representative. Later, Eric and Mark Giguere, William's sons, filed petitions for the formal probate of the will and appointment of a personal representative. The court removed Hilary as personal representative and appointed Attorney LeBlanc as successor personal representative. Attorney LeBlanc filed a petition for instructions, asserting that the 2013 will did not dispose of Linda’s estate because it made no provision for the disposition of the residuary estate in the event that William predeceased Linda.The Probate Court rejected the request to reform the 2013 will to name Eric and Mark as residuary devisees, stating that the evidence was not clear and convincing. The court concluded that since the 2013 will did not fully dispose of Linda’s estate, the residuary estate passed by intestate succession to Hilary.On appeal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, Eric and Mark argued that the Probate Court’s finding was against the preponderance of the believable evidence. They contended that the absence of a provision disposing of the residuary estate must have been a scrivener's error. However, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Probate Court’s judgment, stating that Eric and Mark failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Linda intended that they be the residuary devisees of her estate if William predeceased Linda. The court also concluded that the 2013 will did not provide for the disposition of Linda’s residuary estate in the event she survived William, and thus those assets passed by way of intestate succession to Hilary. View "Estate of Giguere" on Justia Law