June 25th, 2012

Courts repeatedly remind us of the necessity to be very explicit with the language in our trust instruments.  With some very narrow exceptions, the clear, unambiguous language of the instrument controls.  This is sometimes referred to as being bound by the four corners of the instrument.

Our latest reminder of the need to remove all assumptions, ambiguity, or inconsistencies from estate planning documents comes to us from Ohio in WesBanco, Inc. v. Blair.  Here, we had the son of the decedent claiming that the decedent’s will revoked or amended his trust thereby eliminating the decedent’s allegedly estranged girlfriend as a beneficiary under the trust.  The son claimed that the decedent had reserved the right to amend or revoke the trust and he did so when he executed his will.

Seems that if the decedent and girlfriend had a falling out and they were no longer living together, the decedent probably wouldn’t have wanted her to take under the trust.  The Ohio appellate court, however, determined that the trust was unaffected by the decedent’s will all because of a lack of express language in the estate planning documents.  So, what could have been stated more expressly? (more…)

May 31st, 2012

Probate court jurisdiction seems to give practitioners fits (see here and here).  The limited or specialized jurisdiction of probate courts certainly spills over into trust disputes.  In some jurisdictions, this can have far-reaching implications, such as whether a party has a right to a jury trial.

For example, in DiGaetano v. DiGaetano, the New Hampshire Supreme Court determined that several former trust beneficiaries appealing the judgment of a probate court were not entitled to a jury trial in superior court on their appeal.  It all came down to the nature of the relief sought and the jurisdiction of the original court in which the action was brought. (more…)

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…)