Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Roger Cunningham opened an IRA during his marriage to Sheila, naming her as the sole beneficiary. The couple, long-time Tennessee residents, later divorced in 2015. Their Marital Dissolution Agreement, incorporated into a Tennessee court’s final divorce decree, awarded Sheila a specific sum from the IRA and required her to relinquish any further claim to the account. Roger moved to South Dakota before the divorce was finalized but did not update the IRA’s beneficiary designation. After Roger’s death in South Dakota, his daughter Susan, as personal representative of his estate, discovered that the IRA had been transferred to Sheila, still listed as the beneficiary.Following Roger’s death, Susan initiated informal probate proceedings in South Dakota and sought a declaration from the Second Judicial Circuit Court that, under South Dakota’s revocation-on-divorce statute (SDCL 29A-2-804), Sheila’s beneficiary status had been automatically revoked by the divorce, making the IRA part of the estate. Sheila, a Tennessee resident, appeared specially to contest jurisdiction and the procedural propriety of the Estate’s motion, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over her and that the matter should have been brought as a separate action. The circuit court ruled in favor of the Estate, finding it had jurisdiction and that the statute revoked Sheila’s beneficiary designation, thus including the IRA in the estate.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota held that the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction over Sheila. The Supreme Court found that Sheila’s only connection to South Dakota was her receipt of the IRA funds, which resulted from Roger’s unilateral actions, not from any purposeful availment by Sheila of South Dakota’s laws. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court’s order and remanded with instructions to grant Sheila’s motion to dismiss, declining to address the procedural issue. View "Estate Of Cunningham" on Justia Law

After the death of Marjorie Johnson in 2020, her daughter, Rita Johnson, was appointed as executrix of her estate by the Wayne County, Michigan probate court. Rita initiated probate proceedings to determine whether certain assets belonged to the estate or to the Johnson Family Trust, which had a provision requiring arbitration of disputes. Amos C. Johnson, Marjorie’s son and trustee of the Trust, sought to compel arbitration in state court, but the request was denied. Subsequently, Amos and the Trust filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, seeking to compel arbitration of the probate dispute under § 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).The district court ordered the plaintiffs to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing the probate exception, the prior-exclusive-jurisdiction doctrine, and potential lack of diversity. The court ultimately dismissed the case, finding that the FAA does not provide an independent basis for federal question jurisdiction and that the probate proceedings were in rem, meaning the federal court would improperly interfere with property under the state probate court’s control.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Sixth Circuit held that federal courts may only compel arbitration under § 4 of the FAA if they would have jurisdiction over the underlying dispute. Because the probate proceedings were purely matters of state law and involved property already under the state court’s jurisdiction, the federal court lacked both federal question and diversity jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that the federal court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to compel arbitration of the state probate proceedings. View "Johnson v. Johnson" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between a woman and her daughter regarding the daughter’s alleged misuse of property held in an irrevocable trust for which she served as trustee. The mother initiated a lawsuit in Massachusetts state court, asserting several state-law claims against her daughter and her daughter’s then-husband. Subsequently, the daughter filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona, which triggered an automatic stay of the state court litigation. The bankruptcy court initially granted the mother’s motion for relief from the automatic stay and for permissive abstention, allowing the state court case to proceed. However, after delays in the state court proceedings, the daughter moved for relief from that order, and the bankruptcy court vacated its prior order and reimposed the automatic stay.After the bankruptcy court’s March 2021 order reimposing the stay, the mother filed adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court, which were consolidated and tried. The bankruptcy court ruled in favor of the daughter on all claims and entered final judgment in July 2022. The mother then appealed the March 2021 order to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, arguing that the bankruptcy court erred in granting relief under Rule 60(b)(6) rather than Rule 60(b)(1). The district court concluded that the appeal was timely because it believed the March 2021 order was not immediately appealable, and it affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that, under Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, the bankruptcy court’s March 2021 order was a final, appealable order because it definitively resolved a discrete dispute within the bankruptcy case. Since the mother did not appeal within the required fourteen days, her appeal was untimely, and the district court lacked jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "FANTASIA V. DIODATO" on Justia Law

Dr. Padma Rao brought a defamation suit against JP Morgan Chase Bank and its employee, Keifer Krause, after Krause informed the administrator of her late mother’s estate that Rao, acting under a power of attorney, had designated herself as the payable on death (POD) beneficiary of her mother’s accounts. This statement led the estate administrator to accuse Rao of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty in probate court. The dispute centered on whether Rao had improperly used her authority to benefit herself, which would be illegal under Illinois law.The case was initially filed in Illinois state court, but Chase removed it to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before any defendant was served, invoking “snap removal.” The district court dismissed all claims except for defamation per se. On summary judgment, the court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that Krause’s statements were not defamatory, could be innocently construed, and were protected by qualified privilege. Rao appealed both the dismissal of her consumer fraud claim and the grant of summary judgment on her defamation claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit first addressed jurisdiction, dismissing Krause as a party to preserve diversity jurisdiction. The court affirmed the dismissal of Rao’s consumer fraud claim, finding she had not alleged unauthorized disclosure of personal information. However, it reversed the summary judgment on the defamation per se claim against Chase, holding that Krause’s statements could not be innocently construed and that a qualified privilege did not apply, given evidence of possible recklessness. The case was remanded for a jury to determine whether the statements were understood as defamatory. View "Padma Rao v J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

A resident of a memory-care facility in Massachusetts alleged that the facility’s court-appointed receiver, KCP Advisory Group, LLC, conspired with others to unlawfully evict residents, including herself, by falsely claiming that the local fire department had ordered an emergency evacuation. The resident, after being transferred to another facility, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, asserting several state-law claims against KCP and other defendants. The complaint alleged that KCP’s actions violated statutory and contractual notice requirements and were carried out in bad faith.KCP moved to dismiss the claims against it, arguing that as a court-appointed receiver, it was entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity. The district court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that while quasi-judicial immunity barred claims based on negligent performance of receivership duties, it did not bar claims alleging that KCP acted without jurisdiction, contrary to law and contract, or in bad faith. The court thus denied KCP’s motion to dismiss several counts, including those for violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. KCP appealed the denial of immunity as to these counts.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of absolute quasi-judicial immunity de novo. The appellate court held that KCP’s alleged acts—removing residents from the facility—were judicial in nature and within the scope of its authority as receiver. Because KCP did not act in the absence of all jurisdiction, the court concluded that quasi-judicial immunity barred all of the resident’s claims against KCP. The First Circuit therefore reversed the district court’s denial of KCP’s motion to dismiss the specified counts. View "Suny v. KCP Advisory Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Two children of a decedent alleged that their late stepmother wrongfully transferred assets belonging to their father to herself, depriving them of property they would have received under his will. The assets in question included a house and shares in a corporation. The stepmother, who had married their father after both had children from previous marriages, allegedly used a power of attorney to transfer the property to herself during the father’s cognitive decline. After both the father and stepmother died, the children claimed they were not notified of the stepmother’s estate proceedings and that the disputed property was distributed to the stepmother’s descendants.The District Court for Lincoln County dismissed the children’s complaint, citing the doctrine of jurisdictional priority because a similar proceeding was pending in county court. After the county court dismissed the children’s petition for lack of standing, the district court denied the children’s motion to alter or amend its dismissal, without further explanation. The children appealed, arguing that the district court’s reliance on jurisdictional priority was no longer justified after the county court’s dismissal.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the children had standing to pursue relief under the Nebraska Uniform Power of Attorney Act, which specifically allows a principal’s issue to petition a court to review an agent’s conduct under a power of attorney. The court found that the doctrine of jurisdictional priority no longer applied once the county court proceeding was dismissed. However, the Supreme Court also determined that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, as the children would not have inherited the disputed property under the will or by operation of law, even if the transfers were invalid. Nevertheless, the court ruled that the children should be given leave to amend their complaint and reversed and remanded the case with directions to allow amendment. View "Kimball v. Rosedale Ranch" on Justia Law

Robert Redland's parents accumulated ranching property in the Big Horn Basin, which Robert and his wife, Irene, later purchased. They raised their five children on these properties and created the Robert and Irene Redland Family Trust in 1989 to manage the ranch properties. Robert promised his children that all ranch properties would be placed in the trust, except for the Manderson Place, which would be placed in the trust after his and Irene's deaths. In 2007, Robert and Irene sold an 11-acre parcel of the Manderson Place to their daughter Lisa and her husband, Mike Kimsey. The Redland Children discovered that the Manderson Place and other properties were not in the trust and sued Robert and the Kimseys.The District Court of Big Horn County initially ruled that Robert must transfer the disputed properties to the trust, including the 11 acres sold to the Kimseys. However, the court later amended its judgment, removing the requirement for the 11 acres to be transferred to the trust, as the Redland Children had not stated a claim against the Kimseys for the return of the 11 acres. The Redland Children did not appeal this amendment.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision, except for the provision regarding the Manderson Place, which it ordered to be transferred to the trust immediately, subject to a life estate in Robert. The district court then issued a judgment excluding the 11 acres from the trust, which the Redland Children appealed.The Wyoming Supreme Court held that its previous decision did not require the 11 acres to be transferred to the trust and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Redland Children's motions to amend their complaint and for attorney fees. The court affirmed the district court's judgment exempting the 11 acres from being transferred to the trust. View "Redland v. Kimsey" on Justia Law

Ian Elliot, Cindy Elliot, and their mother, Ada Elliot, were partners in StarFire, a limited partnership owning property in Gallatin County. Cindy managed StarFire and sought to remove Ian as a general partner. Ian was appointed Ada’s guardian, and Joyce Wuertz was appointed as Ada’s conservator. Ian sued Cindy for misappropriation of funds and sought to remove Wuertz as conservator, but his motions were denied. Ada’s will divided her estate equally between Ian and Cindy, but due to their strained relationship, a special administrator was appointed instead of Ian. Ian’s subsequent motions to disqualify the special administrator were also denied.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, appointed Andrew Billstein as the special administrator of Ian’s estate. The Objectors (Jenny Jing, Alice Carpenter, and Mike Bolenbaugh) filed an untimely appeal against this appointment, which was declined. The Objectors also opposed the settlement agreements proposed by the Special Administrator, which aimed to resolve ongoing litigation involving Ian’s estate. The District Court approved the settlements, finding them reasonable under the Pallister factors, and denied the Objectors’ motion for relief under M. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court’s decisions. The court held that the District Court had subject matter jurisdiction to approve the settlement agreements and did not abuse its discretion in doing so. The court found that the settlements were reasonable, considering the strength of the cases, the risk and expense of further litigation, and the views of experienced counsel. The court also upheld the District Court’s denial of the Objectors’ post-judgment relief motions. View "In re Estate of Elliot" on Justia Law

In 1999, Rosemary Colver executed the Colver Land Trust agreement, naming her five children as beneficiaries and appointing Bruce and Karin as co-trustees. Rosemary and her husband, Richard, retained life estates in any real property held by the Land Trust. The Land Trust sold and purchased properties over the years, with the final property being the Sanders County Property, purchased by Rosemary and Richard in 2010. Richard quitclaimed his interest to Rosemary in 2012, and Rosemary's will devised the Sanders County Property in trust for Richard and their daughter, Gretchen, allowing them to reside there until their deaths.After Rosemary's death in 2017, Bruce and Gretchen were appointed co-personal representatives of her estate. The final accounting identified the Sanders County Property as an estate asset. In 2023, Gretchen filed a petition to correct the distribution of the Sanders County Property, claiming a life estate per the will. Bruce and the Land Trust filed a cross-motion, asserting the property belonged to the Land Trust, alleging it was purchased with Land Trust funds.The Twentieth Judicial District Court, sitting in probate, denied Bruce and the Land Trust's motion for summary judgment and granted Gretchen's motion, ruling that the Land Trust did not equitably own the Sanders County Property and that Gretchen had a valid life estate per the will.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the probate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the Land Trust's claim of equitable ownership, as such claims are equitable in nature and fall outside the probate court's limited jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed the probate court's decision regarding the Land Trust's claim and remanded with instructions to dismiss it. However, it affirmed the probate court's ruling that Gretchen had a valid life estate in the Sanders County Property as per the will. View "In re R.E. Colver" on Justia Law

Tammy Livingston, individually and as a beneficiary and co-trustee of the Livingston Music Interest Trust, sued her mother, Travilyn Livingston, over the termination of copyright assignments and associated royalties for songs authored by Jay Livingston. Jay had assigned his copyright interests in several songs to a music publishing company owned by Travilyn. Travilyn later invoked her statutory right to terminate these copyright grants and filed termination notices with the U.S. Copyright Office. Tammy challenged these terminations, claiming her rights as a beneficiary were affected.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed Tammy's complaint, holding that it failed to state a claim. Tammy appealed the decision, arguing that the termination notices were ineffective, defective, or invalid, and that she retained a state law right to receive royalties from the songs covered by the terminated agreements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that the 2003 California probate court order, which declared that the Family Trust held no ownership interests in Jay's copyrights, precluded Tammy's claims. The court also found that Jay had validly executed the copyright grants as an individual, not as a trustee, and that Travilyn owned Jay Livingston Music at the time of the assignments. Additionally, the court rejected Tammy's arguments regarding the termination notices' compliance with federal requirements, noting that she failed to plead specific factual allegations for most of the notices. Finally, the court held that Tammy did not identify a state law basis for her claim to royalties, thus failing to meet the pleading standards under Civil Rule 12(b)(6). View "Livingston v. Jay Livingston Music, Inc." on Justia Law