March 28th, 2012

Here’s an interesting case out of Missouri last week in which the court of appeals determined that the trial court flat out got the reasoning for its decision wrong, but nevertheless reached the correct result.  In Banks v. Central Trust and Investment Co., a party alleged that he just “found” an amendment to a trust and asked the court to determine its validity.  The trial court dismissed the case on the basis of judicial estoppel.  The court of appeals determined that judicial estoppel didn’t apply, but the trial court was still correct in dismissing the case.  Let’s see why. (more…)

March 26th, 2012

Let’s start this week with a brief reminder of Florida probate law, courtesy of Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal in Zulon v. Peckins: (more…)

March 19th, 2012

We get asked a lot about two categories of cases: (1) cases about discretionary distributions; and (2) cases about concentrations and diversification.  And, it’s easy to understand why – fiduciaries are often given a great amount of discretion in exercising their duties, but then may get sued over it.  While there seems to be a growing number of decisions dealing with matters like undue influence and lack of capacity, the numbers of authorities regarding the exercise of discretionary powers and diversification/concentrations are still limited.

That’s why when an opinion like that of the Illinois Court of Appeals in Carter v. Carter comes along, we have to take notice.  In this case, the court considered a breach of fiduciary duty claim arising from the trustee’s alleged strategy of investing only in tax-free municipal bonds.  The appellate court determined that this strategy did not violate the prudent investor rule or any fiduciary duty owed by the trustee.  Let’s see why. . . (more…)

March 12th, 2012

It seems like the Georgia appellate courts are on a little bit of a run when it comes to addressing the limited jurisdiction of Georgia’s probate courts.  Interestingly enough, the latest opinion on limited probate court jurisdiction also involves a petition for year’s support.

In In re Mahmoodzadeh, the Georgia Court of Appeals explained how a probate court should handle an award of year’s support when title to the subject property is disputed.  The case highlights that when it comes to petitions for year’s support, the available objections are extremely limited. (more…)

March 6th, 2012

Florida‘s Second District Court of Appeal just gave a reminder that, if you’re going to appoint someone other than the preferred person as personal representative of an intestate estate, you’d better have the record show that the preferred person is not fit to serve as personal representative.

In Bowdoin v. Rinnier, the appellate court reversed the circuit court’s appointment of Mary Rinnier, the decedent’s mother, as personal representative.  The problem?  The decedent’s surviving spouse had filed a petition for appointment. (more…)

March 6th, 2012

Probate courts are courts of limited jurisdiction in Georgia, so they can’t hear every possible claim remotely relating to an estate dispute.  For example, in Georgia, they lack certain equitable powers that are held solely by the superior courts.  Nevertheless, if you find yourself in a probate court, you best raise every issue you have regarding the subject estate or you may end up losing that claim.  Likewise, it’s worth giving the underlying set of facts giving rise to your claim a thorough analysis to ensure that you’re raising all possible claims that could arise from that set of facts.

In Crowe v. Elder, the Georgia Supreme Court considered a decedent’s daughter’s breach of contract claim allegedly arising from the decedent’s widow’s failure to honor an alleged agreement regarding the distribution of the intestate decedent’s estate.  The Supreme Court determined that the breach of contract claim was barred on the grounds of res judicata insofar as an identity of causes of action existed between the daughter’s previously (adversely) adjudicated fraud claim and her breach of contract claim.  Tying this back into our original point about raising all possible claims in the probate court – the Georgia Supreme Court determined that res judicata applied even if the probate court lacked authority over the fraud or contract claims.  Let’s see why. (more…)