February 27th, 2013

Whether a testator had the requisite capacity to execute a will is often the subject of lay testimony.  We’ve frequently talked here about how important the testimony of the drafting attorney, the attesting witnesses, and the notary are in undue influence or lack of testamentary capacity cases.  But, sometimes it may be worth getting an expert to testify in these cases especially when there may be some complex capacity issues.  If you get an expert, however, there’s still the issue of qualifying him or her.

And, even if you have an expert, here’s another reminder of how important the drafting attorney and witnesses to the will are.  In Fowler v. Kulhowvick (Rule 1:28 decision), a Massachusetts probate court actually rejected the expert testimony of a psychologist who failed to interview the drafting attorney and witnesses before offering an opinion on the testator’s testamentary capacity. (more…)

February 7th, 2013

When trust beneficiaries fight, the trustee usually ends up stuck in the middle.  The trustee is often then forced into taking a position in the dispute.  Not surprisingly, judges tend to be very interested in what the trustee thinks, especially if the trustee is a corporate fiduciary.  Chances are that the trustee’s position in the litigation is aligned with one set of beneficiaries but is adverse to the positions being advocated by another set of beneficiaries.  So, how far can or should a trustee force the issue of upholding the settlor’s intent as expressed in the trust instrument?  In Shelton v. Tamposi, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire gives us some thoughts under the Uniform Trust Code in a case involving an in terrorem clause, and the court suggests that there is a bright line the trustee shouldn’t cross. (more…)

February 4th, 2013

There is a surprising but growing split of authority on the extent of fiduciary duties a trustee owes to beneficiaries of a revocable trust other than the settlor.  Remarkably, state appellate courts are dealing with these issues for the first time now.  We previously took a look at this issue when a Missouri appellate court ruled in In re Stephen M. Gunther Revocable Living Trust that “[b]ecause the trustee owed no duty to the beneficiaries prior to the settlor’s death, they are not entitled to an accounting of trust transactions prior to that date.”  In ruling this way, Missouri joined other states, such as Louisiana, in reaching this conclusion.  We also looked at an Arizona appellate court apply Michigan law to reach the same conclusion.  Seemed to make sense.

But, in late 2012, a closely divided California Supreme Court ruled in In re Estate of Giraldin that after a settlor’s death, remainder beneficiaries of a revocable trust have standing to sue the trustee for breach of fiduciary duty to the settlor occurring while the trust was revocable “to the extent that violation harmed the beneficiaries interests.”  In ruling this way, California joined other states, such as Florida, in reaching this conclusion.  The gist for these states is that once the settlor dies, the beneficiaries succeed to the settlor’s interest in the trust and a trustee shouldn’t get away with wrongdoing it might have concealed during the settlor’s lifetime.

So, now in In the Matter of Trust #T-1 of Mary Faye Trimble, Judith R. Cunningham, Trustee, Iowa has weighed in for the first time.  What side did it come down on? (more…)

December 14th, 2012

The drafting lawyer.

The attesting witnesses.

The notary.

Time and again the case law suggests to us that these are three of your most important witnesses in defending (or pursuing) a lack of testamentary capacity or undue influence case.  Yet, we sometimes don’t put a lot of thought into who will be our attesting witnesses or notary and how they might come across as witnesses at trial.

In Amerson v. Pahl, decided by the Georgia Supreme Court, we get to see again how a case turns on the testimony of these three witnesses. (more…)

October 5th, 2012

When updating a particular estate planning document, it’s a good idea to double check that all estate planning documents reflect the testator or grantor’s desired changes.  So, for example, if you update a will, then it’s good practice to double check that you update any corresponding or affected language in a related trust document.  And, if you’re in the habit of using cover pages for trust documents, it’s best to make sure that the cover page actually reflects the text of the trust instrument.

In In re Eleanor V. Mirek Trust (unpublished), Joanne Kloss contended that Eleanor V. Mirek intended that she be the successor trustee of Mirek’s revocable trust upon Mirek’s death.  The Michigan probate court that heard the case, however, found that Mirek intended for her nephew, Warren Kriskywicz, to serve as the successor trustee.

To reach this decision, the probate court had to sort through inconsistent and conflicting language in Mirek’s estate planning documents. (more…)

October 2nd, 2012

There is almost never anything good that can be gained by videotaping the execution of a will.  Chances are the testator will be nervous that the whole episode is being taped and that likely will end up showing up on the video.  One of the only reasons that you would tape the execution of a will is a concern about an incapacity challenge, so think about – nerves aside – how the testator is going to look to a jury.

If you think there will be an incapacity challenge, you’re almost always better off instead having witnesses execute contemporaneous affidavits attesting to all those facts that will support a finding of capacity under the laws of your jurisdiction.

Of course, then cases like Patterson-Fowlkes v. Chancey come along where the videotaping of a will execution pays off.

So, what good stuff was on the tape of Ruth Chancey Wright executing her will? (more…)

July 11th, 2012

In fiduciary litigation cases, it’s common to encounter courts and practitioners who don’t really appreciate the difference between a litigant’s individual capacity and that litigant’s representative, fiduciary capacity.  In other words, the two capacities tend to get conflated.

In Beekhuis v. Morris, a Florida appellate court reminds us that there really is a difference between someone acting individually and that same person acting in a representative capacity as a fiduciary. (more…)

June 27th, 2012

Testamentary capacity is a continuum.  Somewhere along the line, a testator slips from having the requisite capacity to execute a will to not having it.  Where that line falls, however, is the subject of much litigation.

In Deroy v. Estate of Baron, the Appellate Court of Connecticut helped clarify that line under Connecticut law.

A trial court had ruled that a testator lacked the capacity to make a will based on a neurologist’s report about the testator that stated:  ”Given her cognitive impairments, it is unlikely that she would be able to make fully informed, thoughtful judgments regarding complex financial issues.”

This, however, was the wrong standard to apply. (more…)

June 11th, 2012

In an attempt to provide certainty to property rights, the Utah Legislature included in the Utah Probate Code a provision that limits certain proceedings where neither an heir nor a creditor has requested the administration of an estate within three years of the decedent’s death (Utah Code 75-3-107).

In In the Matter of the Estate of Eleanor Strand, a party alleged that this limitation extended to the ability of the probate court to appoint a personal representative of an intestate estate more than three years after the decedent’s death.  Not so, said the Utah Court of Appeals, and here’s why. (more…)