Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A man passed away, and his wife made a claim on his estate for half of the money he had removed from their joint bank account before his death. The wife argued that the couple owned the account as joint tenants, and her husband had withdrawn funds exceeding his interest. The district court dismissed her claim, concluding that she was making a claim for conversion sounding in tort and had not met the legal standard.The wife appealed, arguing that the district court applied the wrong legal standard and that a standard from caselaw on joint tenancies should apply. The Iowa Court of Appeals agreed with her, reversed the district court's decision, and remanded the case. The estate sought further review from the Iowa Supreme Court.The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard. The correct standard, as established in Anderson v. Iowa Department of Human Services, involves determining the respective rights of joint tenants based on their agreement and the presumption that each joint tenant is entitled to half of the joint account, which can be rebutted. The court remanded the case for a new trial to allow for proper fact-finding regarding whether the husband removed funds in excess of his interest in the joint account. View "In re Estate of Johnston" on Justia Law

Richard Muller filed a claim against the estate of John Weeder, deceased, under the Nebraska Probate Code. Muller’s claim was based on a modified judgment entered in his favor against Weeder in a separate fence dispute action before Weeder's death. The county court appointed Margene Cork as the personal representative of Weeder’s estate in October 2017. Muller filed a "Statement of Claim" in December 2017 and a "Petition for Allowance of Claim" in September 2023. Cork, as the personal representative, resisted the claim and moved to strike it. The county court held a hearing and allowed Muller’s claim against the estate.The county court for Boyd County granted Muller’s petition and allowed his claim. The Estate appealed the decision, arguing that the county court lacked jurisdiction and that the law-of-the-case doctrine should apply based on a prior appeal in the fence dispute action. The appeal was initially directed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals but was moved to the Nebraska Supreme Court.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the county court had subject matter jurisdiction over Muller’s claim against the estate. The court noted that the county court has exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters relating to decedents’ estates. The court also rejected the Estate’s argument that the law-of-the-case doctrine applied, as the prior decision was made in a different action and not in the current probate case. The Supreme Court affirmed the county court’s judgment allowing Muller’s claim against the estate. View "In re Estate of Weeder" on Justia Law

Stephen Cook, a trustee of two charitable trusts, sued Preston Marshall, both personally and in his capacity as a trustee of a related trust, alleging that Preston's failures caused the charitable trusts to incur debt and tax penalties. The district court denied Preston's motion to dismiss and later granted Cook partial summary judgment. Preston appealed, arguing that the suit should be dismissed because Cook's unnamed co-trustees lacked diversity of citizenship.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana initially ruled in Cook's favor, ordering Preston to authorize payments from the Peroxisome Trust to the Marshall Heritage Foundation and holding that Preston breached his fiduciary duties. Cook later moved to enforce this judgment, claiming Preston continued to refuse to authorize payments and failed to file tax returns. The district court held Preston in contempt but did not remove him as co-trustee. Cook then filed a new suit against Preston, seeking damages and Preston's removal as co-trustee. The district court denied Preston's motion to dismiss, which argued that the claims were barred by res judicata and that necessary parties were not joined.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that complete diversity of citizenship existed because the trusts themselves were not parties, and only the citizenship of Cook and Preston mattered. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding without joining Elaine and Pierce as parties. Additionally, the court determined that res judicata did not bar Cook's claims because the new claims arose from Preston's post-judgment conduct. Finally, the court rejected Preston's arguments regarding comparative fault and failure to mitigate damages, affirming the district court's judgment. View "Cook v. Marshall" on Justia Law

The case involves James B. Church & Associates, P.C. (the Church Firm), which served as legal counsel for Dennis Shogren, the personal representative of the estate of Loren R. Kirk, in a probate action. The estate beneficiaries, including Barbara Sagehorn and the Carter Beneficiaries, alleged that the Church Firm negligently failed to file a protective claim for a refund with the IRS or advise Shogren to do so. This failure purportedly resulted in the estate missing out on a potential $5,000,000 tax refund.The Superior Court of San Bernardino denied the Church Firm's special motion to strike the causes of action under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court found that the firm did not demonstrate that the causes of action arose from its constitutionally protected free speech or petitioning activities. The Church Firm appealed this decision.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court conducted an independent review and agreed with the lower court's ruling. It determined that the alleged acts forming the basis of the petitioners' causes of action—specifically, the Church Firm's failure to file a protective claim for a refund and failure to advise Shogren to file such a claim—were not protected activities under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court emphasized that the anti-SLAPP statute protects statements or writings made before or in connection with an issue under consideration by a judicial body, not failures to act or speak.Therefore, the Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying the anti-SLAPP motion, concluding that the Church Firm did not meet its burden of proving that the causes of action arose from protected conduct. View "Callister v. James B. Church & Associates" on Justia Law

Chester “Chet” Lake contested the probate of his mother’s will, which his sister Mary Chesnutt had filed. Lake doubted the will’s validity, claiming undue influence, and requested a jury trial to determine the issue of devisavit vel non. The Madison County Chancery Court entered a scheduling order but did not specify whether the trial would be a bench or jury trial. After the discovery and motions deadlines passed, Lake filed a Notice of Jury Trial. Chesnutt moved to strike the notice, arguing that Lake had waived his right to a jury trial by participating in pretrial proceedings and that the notice was untimely.The Madison County Chancery Court granted Chesnutt’s motion to strike, finding that Lake had waived his right to a jury trial by agreeing to the scheduling order and that his notice was untimely. Lake appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and held that Lake had not waived his right to a jury trial. The court found that under Mississippi Code Section 91-7-19, Lake was entitled to a jury trial upon request before any hearing on the issue of devisavit vel non. The court determined that the entry of the scheduling order did not constitute a hearing on the matter and that Lake’s notice, filed thirty-two days before the trial date, was timely. The court reversed the chancery court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "In the Matter of the Estate of Lake v. Chesnutt" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a beneficiary of the Carolyn Patricia Young Family Trust, alleged that the defendants, the trust protector and trustee, were conspiring to withhold trust funds improperly. The alleged conspiracy aimed to preserve assets for the trustee, who is also a residuary beneficiary. Plaintiff sought an ex parte application to suspend the defendants' powers and appoint an interim trustee.The Superior Court of Orange County granted the ex parte application, issuing a minute order that suspended the powers of the trustee and trust protector, appointed a private professional fiduciary as interim trustee, required the interim trustee to post a bond, set a review hearing, and prohibited the interim trustee from using trust assets for compensation without prior court authorization. Defendants appealed this order.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that orders suspending trustees and appointing interim trustees in probate court are not directly appealable. The court emphasized that such orders are provisional remedies, not final orders, and thus do not fall under the categories of appealable orders listed in the Probate Code sections 1300 and 1304. The court also found that the defendants lacked standing to appeal the portions of the order imposing a bond requirement and prohibiting the interim trustee from using trust assets for compensation without prior court authorization, as these did not injuriously affect the defendants' rights or interests in an immediate and substantial way.The court dismissed the appeal and denied the plaintiff's motion for sanctions, although it expressed concern over the conduct of the defendants' counsel. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' first request for judicial notice, granted the plaintiff's request for judicial notice, and denied the defendants' second request for judicial notice. View "Young v. Hartford" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute among co-trustees of The Pony Tracks Ranch Trust, specifically Allison Littlefield, her brothers David and Scott Littlefield, and her aunt Denise Sobel. Allison filed a petition alleging various grievances, including the removal of co-trustees, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the Trust. She claimed that the co-trustees misused Trust funds, concealed information, converted her personal property, and restricted her and her husband's use of the Ranch. Additionally, she alleged that the co-trustees failed to address misconduct by an employee, Stacey Limbada, who had been hostile towards her and her husband.The San Mateo County Superior Court denied the appellants' special motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute, which is designed to prevent lawsuits that chill the exercise of free speech and petition rights. The court found that the appellants did not meet their burden of showing that Allison's petition arose from protected activity. The court also denied Allison's request for attorney's fees, concluding that the anti-SLAPP motion was not frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the anti-SLAPP motion, agreeing that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the petition was based on protected activity. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of Allison's request for attorney's fees. The appellate court found that the anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous because it was entirely without merit, as no reasonable attorney would conclude that the petition sought to impose liability based on protected activity. The case was remanded for a determination of the appropriate award of attorney's fees for Allison. View "Littlefield v. Littlefield" on Justia Law

Paul O’Farrell, individually and on behalf of the Raymond and Victoria O’Farrell Living Trust, the Estate of Victoria O’Farrell, Skyline Cattle Co., and VOR, Inc., filed a lawsuit against Grand Valley Hutterian Brethren, Inc., the Raymond and Victoria O’Farrell Living Trust, and Kelly O’Farrell. Paul alleged that Kelly manipulated their father, Raymond, to orchestrate improper transactions, including a $3.2 million land sale and the non-renewal of Skyline’s lease, causing financial harm to the family entities and himself.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Grant County, South Dakota, presided by Judge Robert L. Spears, dismissed Paul’s claims and awarded attorney fees to the defendants. Paul had requested a change of judge, which was denied by Presiding Judge Stoltenburg, who cited judicial economy and previous submissions by Paul in related cases as reasons for the denial.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that Paul and Skyline followed the proper procedure for seeking a change of judge and that neither had waived their right to do so in this specific action. The court found that Judge Spears was disqualified from further proceedings upon the filing of the affidavit for change of judge. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated all orders entered by Judge Spears in the case and remanded for the appointment of a replacement judge. View "Estate Of O’Farrell v. Grand Valley Hutterian Brethren" on Justia Law

Jacqueline Martin and Herbert McCray were in a romantic relationship for over four decades until Jacqueline's death in 2020. Jacqueline died without a will, and Herbert sought to administer and inherit her estate, claiming they were common law married. Herbert died before the matter was resolved, and his son, Brian McCray, sought to continue Herbert's claim. Jacqueline's first cousin, Juanita Waller, contested this, arguing that Jacqueline and Herbert were not common law married and that she was the next of kin.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Probate Division, appointed Juanita as the personal representative of Jacqueline's estate, concluding that Juanita had priority over Brian. The court then held a trial to determine if Jacqueline and Herbert were common law married. The trial court limited the evidence to direct proof of an express mutual agreement in the present tense to be permanent partners. The court ruled in favor of Juanita, finding no such express mutual agreement.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court erred by precluding Brian from introducing circumstantial evidence that could infer an express mutual agreement. The appellate court noted that when neither partner is available to testify, such an agreement may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the couple’s relationship, including their cohabitation and reputation in the community. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, allowing Brian to present relevant circumstantial evidence. The appellate court affirmed the appointment of Juanita as the personal representative of Jacqueline's estate. View "In re Estate of Martin" on Justia Law

Buford and Sharon Combs executed a joint will in 2013, intending to distribute their estate equally among their five children from previous marriages. Buford died in October 2020, and Sharon died in January 2021. Most of their assets were held jointly with right of survivorship, and Buford's estate was small enough to dispense with administration. Sharon's sons were initially appointed as co-administrators, but Greg Combs later filed a motion to probate the joint will as a lost will, which was granted by the Jackson District Court.The Napier brothers filed a declaratory judgment action, arguing that the joint will's provisions only took effect if Buford and Sharon died in a common disaster or close in time, which did not occur. They claimed Sharon died intestate, entitling them to inherit all property. The Combs siblings argued the couple intended to divide the estate equally among all five children and sought to reform the will to remove the qualifying clause.The Jackson Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Combs siblings, interpreting the will to distribute the estate equally among the children. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the will was unambiguous and extrinsic evidence was inadmissible. They concluded Sharon died intestate as the conditions in the will were not met.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals. The court held that the presumption against intestacy and the impracticality of administering separate estates supported the interpretation that the estate should be divided equally among the five children. The court reinstated the Jackson Circuit Court's summary judgment. View "COMBS V. NAPIER" on Justia Law