Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around the interpretation of the term "home" in the context of Medicaid eligibility. The applicants, Clyde and Dorothy Burt, sold their house to their daughter and son-in-law, Linda and Robby Wallace, and moved into a rental property owned by the Wallaces. Later, they moved into a skilled-nursing facility. After moving into the facility, the Burts used their cash assets to buy an undivided one-half interest in the house they had previously sold to the Wallaces. They then executed a Lady Bird deed in favor of the Wallaces, granting their newly acquired one-half interest back to the Wallaces, reserving an enhanced life estate. The Burts then applied for Medicaid assistance, but the Texas Health and Human Services Commission denied their claim, arguing that the property interest was not excluded from the calculation of resources for Medicaid eligibility.The trial court reversed the agency’s determination, and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The court of appeals held that a property interest created after admission to a skilled-nursing facility can be excluded from the resources used to determine Medicaid eligibility if the applicant states an intent to live at the property in the future.The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with the lower courts' interpretation. The court held that a “home” is the applicant’s principal place of residence before the claim for Medicaid assistance arises, coupled with the intent to reside there in the future. A property interest purchased with qualifying resources after the applicant moves to a skilled-nursing facility is an available resource for determining Medicaid eligibility under federal eligibility rules, as the property was not the applicant’s principal place of residence at the time the claim for benefits arose. The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and rendered judgment in favor of the Commission. View "TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION v. ESTATE OF CLYDE L. BURT" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the interpretation of a provision in the Eileen Ryan Revocable Trust. The provision in question bequeathed $5 million in "Countable Assets" to each of Eileen’s five children. Constance M. Ryan, one of the children, argued that she had not yet received the full amount of Countable Assets. She contended that certain gifts she had received during Eileen’s lifetime were intended to be separate from the testamentary bequests made in Eileen’s trust instruments and therefore, such gifts would not reduce the amount she would receive under the Countable Assets provision.The County Court for Douglas County found that Constance had already received more than the $5 million due in Countable Assets based on the language of the trust instrument and evidence. The court granted summary judgment against Constance on all issues and dismissed her petition. Constance appealed this decision.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the trust agreement was unambiguous and that the distributions Constance received from irrevocable trusts during Eileen’s lifetime were Countable Assets. Therefore, Constance had already received the $5 million bequest and was not entitled to additional assets. The court also rejected Constance's request to reform the trust agreement, finding no evidence that both Eileen’s intent and the terms of the trust were affected by a mistake of fact or law. View "In re Eileen Ryan Revocable Trust" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over the estate of Neil Smeenk. Denise Schipke-Smeenk, Neil's wife, and Ryan Smeenk, Neil's son, are the parties involved. Denise and Neil had executed mutual and reciprocal wills in 2017, along with an agreement that neither would revoke or amend their wills without the other's written consent. However, after their relationship deteriorated, Neil executed a new will without Denise's consent, disinheriting her to the extent allowed under South Dakota law and naming his children as the primary beneficiaries. Neil passed away shortly after. Denise filed a petition for formal, unsupervised probate concerning the 2017 will, and Ryan filed a competing petition to probate the 2019 will.The circuit court determined that Neil's 2019 will was valid and should be admitted into probate. The court concluded that the couple's agreement did not render Neil's 2017 will irrevocable, though it may subject his estate to liability. Denise later filed a motion for approval of a creditor claim in which she proposed to distribute Neil's estate according to the terms of his 2017 will. The circuit court conducted a court trial regarding Denise’s claim, but ultimately denied Denise’s claim, stating that Denise did not demonstrate that the circumstances supported the equitable remedy of specific performance.In the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota, Denise appealed the circuit court's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision to deny Denise’s claim after a court trial. Denise then filed a motion for partial summary judgment relating to her breach of contract claim against the estate of her deceased husband, Neil Smeenk. She changed the type of relief she was requesting; she was now seeking money damages for the breach instead of the specific performance remedy she had pursued unsuccessfully in the previous case. However, the circuit court concluded that Denise was barred from litigating her breach of contract claim against Neil’s estate. Denise appealed this decision, but the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision, stating that Denise had a complete and fair opportunity to litigate her breach of contract claim in the prior proceeding. View "Estate Of Smeenk" on Justia Law

In 2015, Universitas Education, LLC initiated a lawsuit against Jack E. Robinson, III, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Robinson defended himself until his death in November 2017. After Robinson's death, the focus of the case shifted to finding a proper party to substitute as a representative of his estate. Universitas identified Lillian Granderson, Robinson's mother, as a suitable substitute and filed motions to substitute her into the case and to enter default judgment against her. The district court granted both motions.On appeal, Granderson argued that the district court erred in granting Universitas' motion to substitute and motion for default judgment. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to substitute Granderson into the case, but vacated the default judgment. The court found that Granderson had defended the case and no entry of default had been entered against her, which was a requirement for a default judgment. The case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Universitas Education, LLC v. Granderson" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the will of Dennis Schmeling, who left his farmland to his sister-in-law, Sharon, in his 2021 will. Two of Dennis's brothers and one nephew contested the will, alleging undue influence by Sharon. The Estate moved for summary judgment, arguing that the contestants could not show that the devise was the result of undue influence, based on a previous court decision (In re Estate of Tank). The circuit court agreed with the Estate, concluding that there was no evidence showing that Dennis had a testamentary disposition toward the contestants and that the contestants did not present evidence showing that Sharon participated in the drafting of the disputed will or engaged in acts of undue influence. The contestants appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reversed the circuit court's decision and remanded the case. The Supreme Court found that the circuit court had erred by granting summary judgment on grounds not raised by the parties and by granting the Estate's motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court concluded that there were material issues of fact in dispute on the contestants' claim that the 2021 Will was the result of Sharon’s undue influence. Therefore, the circuit court erred in granting the Estate’s motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court also found that the circuit court erred in denying the contestants' partial motion for summary judgment, as it was undisputed that neither the 2002 Will nor the 2021 Will contains language expressly disinheriting the contestants. View "In re Estate Of Schmeling" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the interpretation of a will and the application of the anti-lapse statute. Heather W. Hossack, the testator, had devised certain assets to her mother, Ethel Wyman, "if she survives me." However, Wyman predeceased Heather. John A. Hossack, Heather's brother, argued that the anti-lapse statute required that the failed devise fall to him. Thomas Gibney, the named beneficiary of the residuary estate, sought a declaration that the phrase "if she survives me" showed Heather's intent to avoid the application of the anti-lapse statute.The case was initially heard in the Essex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department, where the judge allowed summary judgment in favor of Gibney. John appealed the decision, and the Supreme Judicial Court transferred the case from the Appeals Court.The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The court held that the phrase "if she survives me" demonstrated Heather's intent to avoid the application of the anti-lapse statute. The court reasoned that Heather had contemplated the possibility of Wyman predeceasing her and had expressly provided for it in the will. Therefore, the anti-lapse statute's presumed intention had to yield to the expressed intention of the testator. The court also noted that the will as a whole supported this conclusion, as it specified that a devisee is only considered to have "survived" Heather if the devisee survives her for at least ninety days. View "Gibney v. Hossack" on Justia Law

The case at hand involves a dispute over the interpretation of a will left by Robert Pettengill Beckey, who was survived by his three children, Sandra L. Arthur, Angela M. Beckey, and Timothy E. Beckey. The will included specific instructions for dividing real property located at 848 Allen Pond Rd., Greene, ME, among the three children. However, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court found that the Probate Court erred in its interpretation of the will, particularly regarding Angela's share.Specifically, Angela's share was described in the will as "1/3 of property located at 848 Allen Pond Rd., minus the valuation of a piece of land on water by property line of 'Caron's'". The Probate Court had ruled that this description was ambiguous and that Angela's share therefore fell into the residue of the estate, to be divided equally among the three children. However, the Supreme Judicial Court found that the ambiguity of the "minus" clause was irrelevant because Robert never conveyed any part of the land to Angela. Therefore, Angela was entitled to a one-third share of the Allen Pond Road property’s value without any reduction.The Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the Probate Court's ruling was not consistent with Robert's intent for his children to receive equal shares of the property's value. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Estate of Robert Pettengill Beckey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia granted a writ of prohibition to defendant Denita D. Berg, preventing the Circuit Court of Grant County from enforcing orders to sell personal property before determining its ownership. The orders were part of a case brought by Denita Berg's stepchildren, who alleged that Berg had not properly inventoried their father's estate after his death and had committed fraud.The Supreme Court's decision was based on the fact that the orders to sell the property were issued despite the existence of genuine issues of material fact about who owned it. The Court explained that the circuit court's order was erroneous as a matter of law because it went beyond the requirements of Rule 56(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 56(c) states that summary judgment should only be granted when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the party is entitled to the judgment as a matter of law.The Court concluded that the circuit court had exceeded its legitimate powers by ordering the sale of the property when ownership was still in dispute. Therefore, it granted a writ of prohibition, as moulded, to preclude the circuit court from ordering the sale of the disputed property. View "State of West Virginia ex rel. Berg v. Ryan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Louisiana was asked to decide if the Council of the City of New Orleans ("Council") had the legal standing to institute a lawsuit against various parties, including the Mayor of New Orleans, relating to the assets of the Edward Wisner Trust. The Council had challenged a 2020 agreement, which it alleged illegally disposed of public property and modified the trust without its oversight or input. The issue arose when the defendants filed an exception of lack of procedural capacity, arguing that the Council did not have the authority to institute the lawsuit. The trial court denied the exception, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal, holding that the Council did have the procedural capacity to bring the lawsuit. The court based its decision on its interpretation of the Home Rule Charter of the City of New Orleans ("HRC"), which indicated that the Council, as an independent entity distinct from the executive branch, had the legal capacity to function independently and to institute suits as necessary for the protection of the city's rights and interests. The court also considered the longstanding custom of the Council participating in litigation both as plaintiff and defendant. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the Council had the legal standing to bring the lawsuit, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings. View "THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS VS. EDWARD WISNER DONATION" on Justia Law

A case in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania involved a dispute over the termination of a charitable trust. The trust was established by Richard H. Wells in 1965 for the sole benefit of his alma mater, the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), with the Virginia Military Institute Foundation (the “Foundation”) named as the beneficiary. Since its inception, the Trust has been managed by an independent corporate trustee, PNC Bank. The Foundation sought to terminate the Trust and receive the assets outright, arguing that it could manage the Trust with fewer expenses and higher returns.The lower courts denied the termination, concluding that the burdens of the Trust did not meet the statutory criteria for termination under Section 7740.3(e) of the Uniform Trust Act. The Foundation appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, arguing that the lower courts erroneously considered Wells’ intent to create a trust, which the Foundation claimed was not relevant under the statute.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the lower courts’ decision. The court held that the Foundation failed to satisfy the statutory standard under Section 7740.3(e) of the Uniform Trust Act, which requires a showing that the administrative expenses or other burdens of the trust are unreasonably out of proportion to the charitable benefits. The court concluded that the expenses and burdens of the trust, including an annual excise tax and mandatory annual distribution under the Private Foundation Rules of the Internal Revenue Code, were not unreasonably out of proportion to the trust's charitable benefits. View "In Re: Trust B of Wells; Apl of: V.M.I. Foundation" on Justia Law