DOCSLIB.ORG

ELIZABETH KERR ET AL. V. LYDIA HENDERSON ET AL

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ELIZABETH KERR ET AL. V. LYDIA HENDERSON ET AL 09/28/2020 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 23, 2020 Session ELIZABETH KERR ET AL. v. LYDIA HENDERSON ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Johnson County No. 7226 John C. Rambo, Chancellor No. E2020-00112-COA-R3-CV In this case involving the inheritance of an investment account, the three plaintiffs filed a complaint in September 2016, asserting, inter alia, that a letter executed by their father prior to his 2007 death had operated to create an express trust concerning the account, for which their stepmother had acted as trustee with the understanding that the plaintiffs were to be the beneficiaries of the account after her death. The plaintiffs alternatively sought imposition of a constructive trust. The plaintiffs’ stepmother, who is the subject decedent in this action, had died in April 2016. The plaintiffs initially named as defendants the co- executors of the decedent’s estate, as well as the financial institution holding the investment account. The trial court subsequently entered agreed orders to dismiss the financial institution as a party and to substitute as defendants the decedent’s three adult children from a previous marriage. Upon competing motions for summary judgment and following a hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that an express trust had been created by the writings of the plaintiffs’ father and that, alternatively, a constructive trust should be imposed based on the combined writings and actions of the plaintiffs’ father and the decedent. The defendants filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the trial court denied following a hearing upon finding in part that new evidence submitted by the defendants should not be considered. The defendants have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed; Case Remanded THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J., and JOHN W. MCCLARTY, J., joined. Mark W. McFall, Johnson City, Tennessee, for the appellants, Lydia Henderson, Scott Douglas, and Benjamin Douglas. Andrew T. Wampler and John R. Graham, Kingsport, Tennessee, for the appellees, Elizabeth Kerr, Victoria McCoy, and Angela Sturdivant. OPINION I. Factual and Procedural Background The plaintiffs, Elizabeth Kerr, Victoria McCoy, and Angela Sturdivant (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), initiated this action by filing a complaint on September 30, 2016, seeking declaratory judgment in the Johnson County Chancery Court (“trial court”) that the writings and actions of their father, Edwin Robinson Sturdivant, and stepmother, Mary Foote Sturdivant (“Decedent”), had operated to create an express trust related to an investment account with Raymond James Financial, Inc. (“the Account”). Plaintiffs alternatively asked the trial court to impose a constructive trust. Plaintiffs originally named as defendants Raymond James Financial, Inc. (“Raymond James”), and the two co-executors at that time of Decedent’s estate, Jeannie Countiss and Karla Prudhomme (collectively, “Co-Executors”). The trial court subsequently dismissed Raymond James from this action without prejudice by agreed order. Upon Co-Executors’ resignation from representation of Decedent’s estate, the trial court entered an order on May 10, 2019, inter alia, substituting Decedent’s three children, Lydia Henderson, Scott Douglas, and Benjamin Douglas, as defendants in this matter (collectively, “Defendants”). A central issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by finding that evidence presented by Defendants for the first time with their Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59.04 motion to alter or amend the court’s summary judgment order did not warrant consideration as newly submitted evidence. At the time of the trial court’s August 2019 summary judgment order, the facts found by the trial court had not been challenged by any evidence presented prior to the summary judgment hearing. The trial court specifically found as follows: Plaintiffs are the adult children of Edwin Sturdivant (“Edwin”). Edwin married Mary Foote Sturdivant [(“Decedent”)] around 1975. [Decedent] had three children from her first marriage, Lydia Douglas Henderson, Scott Douglas, and Ben Douglas. Sometime before 2000, Edwin opened an investment account with Raymond James in Memphis, Tennessee (“the Account”). During the marriage of Edwin and [Decedent], Edwin kept the Account as separate property in his name alone. 2 As of June of 2000, the Account held various state and municipal bonds with a face value of approximately One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00). Edwin’s Last Will and Testament was dated June 20, 2000. It states, “I bequeath to Mary Sturdivant [Decedent] one thousand Tennessee bonds valued in total at face, not market value, at $1 million. She shall have the right to pick the ones which best fit her needs.” Edwin’s Last Will and Testament did not mention any of [Decedent’s] natural children. In March 2004, Edwin wrote a letter to [Decedent] instructing her to draft her own Last Will and Testament leaving the funds within the Account, their house located at 430 Cedar Street in Mountain City, and any additional income from the Account saved by [Decedent] to Edwin’s natural children with a reference to his grandchildren. Edwin died on September 12, 2007. On August 22, 2008, an Agreed Order was entered by the Johnson County Chancery Court, Probate Division, closing the Estate of Edwin Sturdivant. The August 22, 2008 Agreed Order found in-part that [Decedent] received all of the bonds owned or held on the date of distribution in partial satisfaction of the bequest made within Edwin’s Last Will and Testament. The bonds bequeathed to [Decedent] have been traced and remain in the Account. Two months after Edwin died, Plaintiff Elizabeth Kerr received a letter from [Decedent] stating that [Decedent] had received a statement from Raymond James and that she would continue to carry a personal liability umbrella policy to cover the one million dollars in the Account. On May 13, 2015, Elizabeth Kerr wrote a letter to [Decedent] asking [Decedent] to designate Edwin’s three natural children as beneficiaries of the Account to avoid probate. In August of 2015, [Decedent] sent each of the Plaintiffs a cover letter and a Raymond James Transfer On Death Form to be completed by the Plaintiffs as beneficiaries of the Account. The letter from [Decedent] to Elizabeth stated, “Hope this will allay some of your anxieties.” The letter from [Decedent] to Victoria McCoy 3 stated, “There’s no rush since I’ll be gone for several weeks toward the end of the month and won’t get this back to them until I get back.” Plaintiffs each completed and returned Transfer On Death Forms to [Decedent] around August or September of 2015. Raymond James never received the Transfer On Death Forms. Edwin’s 2004 letter is consistent with the written statements made by [Decedent] to Elizabeth Kerr in 2004, 2007, and 2015; to Victoria McCoy in 2015; and to Angela Sturdivant in 2015. The 2004 letter and the actions of Edwin and [Decedent] indicate their mutual desire for the bonds to transfer to Plaintiffs upon [Decedent’s] death. All the actions of [Decedent] indicate that it was her intent to hold the Account for the Plaintiffs. [Decedent] attempted to comply with the 2004 letter by sending the Raymond James Transfer On Death Forms. A mistake occurred during the attempt when the Transfer On Death Forms were lost in the mail or misplaced. [Decedent] died testate on April 13, 2016. [Decedent’s] Last Will and Testament did not mention the Account, Transfer On Death forms, or name specifically the plaintiffs as beneficiaries or bequeathing this account to them. [Decedent’s] Will was probated on April 21, 2016 and her Estate remains open. (Paragraph numbering omitted.) Co-Executors, represented by attorney George T. Wright, filed an answer on January 6, 2017, asserting as affirmative defenses res judicata relative to the conclusion of Mr. Sturdivant’s estate and “specific estoppel” as to Ms. Kerr due to her former role as co-executor of her father’s estate.1 On February 23, 2018, Co-Executors filed a motion for partial summary judgment, requesting that Decedent’s residence be released from any 1 As the parties have noted on appeal, Ms. Kerr is a licensed attorney and a sitting state appellate court judge in the state of Texas. 4 claim asserted by Plaintiffs, who had averred in their complaint that the residence was included in the purported express trust or should be in the constructive trust with the Account. Upon Plaintiffs’ response stating that they did not contest the release of the residence, the trial court entered an order granting partial summary judgment to Co- Executors and releasing the residence from the reach of this action on July 13, 2018. Following the trial court’s sua sponte placement of this matter on its trial docket and a subsequent agreed order continuing proceedings, the trial court entered an agreed scheduling order on November 30, 2018. The court set trial for May 9, 2019; a discovery deadline of April 1, 2019; and a deadline for dispositive motions of December 31, 2018. On December 27, 2018, Co-Executors filed a motion for summary judgment, again arguing that this action was precluded by the administration and closing of Mr. Sturdivant’s estate. As to the letters attached to Plaintiffs’ complaint and presented as evidence of a trust, Co-Executors stated in their summary judgment motion: “Assuming that all of the letters presented are genuine and for the purposes of this Motion admitted, the same could not and did not act as addendums or codicils to the Will of Edwin Sturdivant.” Co-Executors attached to their motion probate documents related to Mr.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Spring 2014 Melanie Leslie – Trusts and Estates – Attack Outline 1
    Spring 2014 Melanie Leslie – Trusts and Estates – Attack Outline Order of Operations (Will) • Problems with the will itself o Facts showing improper execution (signature, witnesses, statements, affidavits, etc.), other will challenges (Question call here is whether will should be admitted to probate) . Look out for disinherited people who have standing under the intestacy statute!! . Consider mechanisms to avoid will challenges (no contest, etc.) o Will challenges (AFTER you deal with problems in execution) . Capacity/undue influence/fraud o Attempts to reference external/unexecuted documents . Incorporation by reference . Facts of independent significance • Spot: Property/devise identified by a generic name – “all real property,” “all my stocks,” etc. • Problems with specific devises in the will o Ademption (no longer in estate) . Spot: Words of survivorship . Identity theory vs. UPC o Abatement (estate has insufficient assets) . Residuary general specific . Spot: Language opting out of the common law rule o Lapse . First! Is the devisee protected by the anti-lapse statute!?! . Opted out? Spot: Words of survivorship, etc. UPC vs. CL . If devise lapses (or doesn’t), careful about who it goes to • If saved, only one state goes to people in will of devisee, all others go to descendants • Careful if it is a class gift! Does not go to residuary unless whole class lapses • Other issues o Revocation – Express or implied? o Taxes – CL is pro rata, look for opt out, especially for big ticket things o Executor – Careful! Look out for undue
    [Show full text]
  • Confidential Relations and Unenforcible Express Trusts
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1928 Confidential Relations and Unenforcible Express Trusts George Gleason Bogert Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation George Gleason Bogert, "Confidential Relations and Unenforcible Express Trusts," 13 Cornell Law Quarterly 237 (1928). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONS AND UNEN- FORCIBLE EXPRESS TRUSTS GEORGE GLEASON BOGERT* It is a commonplace that courts of equity frequently base relief solely on the violation of a confidential relation. One of numerous examples of this action is to be found in the constructive trusts which are often created where a grantee has broken an oral, unenforcible promise to hold in trust for the grantor, and the grantee stood in a confidential relation to the grantor at the time of the making of the promise. The following is a typical case: A has conveyed land to B on B's oral agreement to hold it in trust for A and reconvey at A's command. A and B were in confidential relations before the deed was made. The Statute of Frauds prevents the enforcement of B's express promises. The retention of the land after setting up the Statute is not generally regarded as such inequitable conduct as to justify a decree that the holder is a constructive trustee.
    [Show full text]
  • The Texas Constructive Trust and Its Peculiar Requirements
    Digital Commons at St. Mary's University Faculty Articles School of Law Faculty Scholarship Spring 2018 The Texas Constructive Trust and Its Peculiar Requirements David Dittfurth St. Mary's University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/facarticles Part of the Estates and Trusts Commons Recommended Citation David Dittfurth, The Texas Constructive Trust and Its Peculiar Requirements, 50 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 447 (2018). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE TEXAS CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND ITS PECULIAR REQUIREMENTS David Dittfurth" I. INTRODUCTION ........................................ 447 II. THESIS .............................................. 448 III. CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST MECHANICS ........................ 451 A . JudicialR em edy ........................................................................ 451 B. Statutory Rem edies ................................................................... 452 IV. THE THREE-ELEMENT RULE ........................................................... 454 A. KCM Financial, LLC v. Bradshaw...................454 B . K insel v. L indsey ...................................................................... 458 V. THE FUNCTION OF WRONGDOING..................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Must the Remedy at Law Be Inadequate Before a Constructive Trust Will Be Impressed?
    St. John's Law Review Volume 25 Number 2 Volume 25, May 1951, Number 2 Article 6 Must the Remedy at Law Be Inadequate Before a Constructive Trust Will Be Impressed? St. John's Law Review Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1951] NOTES AND COMMENT ing has never been held to be in this category. The choice of program and set and the failure or success of a broadcaster has been left to the public. The approval or rejection of the Commission's decision will decide whether or not these same principles will apply to color telecasts. Whatever the decision of the court, and whichever system of color television broadcasting is finally approved, the controversy will at last have the finality of a decision of the United States Su- preme Court. There will have been a substantial contribution to a new field of law-television law. Under this law the industry will grow and perfect itself. In this way there will best be served the "public interest, convenience, or necessity." X MUST THIE REMEDY AT LAw BE INADEQUATE BEFORE A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST WILL BE IMPRESSED? Introduction Generally speaking, a constructive trust is a trust by operation of law, which arises contrary to intention 1 against one, who by fraud, commission
    [Show full text]
  • Beware the Constructive Trust Claim
    Portfolio Media. Inc. | 860 Broadway, 6th Floor | New York, NY 10003 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected] Beware The Constructive Trust Claim Law360, New York (October 13, 2010) -- Faced with the prospect of little recovery at some distant point in the future, larger unsecured creditors are using the remedy of a constructive trust to target specific property and to attempt to obtain a full recovery superior to all other claimants, including senior secured creditors. Even if lacking in merit, the mere assertion of a constructive trust claim may prove to be an impediment in getting past an objection to plan confirmation based on the demand that the unresolved constructive trust claim be separately classified. The ultimate resolution of the claimant’s entitlement to a constructive trust remedy, including the procedure to attack it, depends on the circuit in which the bankruptcy case is pending. The Basic Law as to the Remedy of a Constructive Trust “A constructive trust is an involuntary equitable trust created as a remedy to compel the transfer of property from the person wrongfully holding it to the rightful owner.” In re Real Estate Associates Ltd. Partnership Litig., 223 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1139 (C.D. Cal. 2002). “The imposition of a constructive trust requires: (1) the existence of res (property or some interest in property); (2) the right of the complaining party to that res; and (3) some wrongful acquisition or detention of the res by another party who is not entitled to it.” See Burlesci v.
    [Show full text]
  • Getting Title out of a Trust
    GETTING TITLE OUT OF A TRUST Prepared by Ward P. Graham, Esq. Vice President, Region H Counsel Stewart Title Guaranty Company For 2002 Stewart Title Guaranty Company Agency Seminar A. INTRODUCTION For purposes of this seminar, we’re going to deal with issues involving getting title out of express trusts, i.e., those created by some form of instrument. We won’t be discussing trusts arising or imposed by operation of law, such as constructive trusts and resulting trusts. Nor will we get into the world of charitable trusts or the statutory custodial-type trusts dealt with in G.L. Chapters 201C and 203B. What we will be discussing are the two basic types of trusts that you are most likely to see in your conveyancing practice, testamentary trusts (created by the will of a decedent) and inter vivos trusts under written agreements or “declarations”. Included among the latter, for purposes of our discussion relating to taking title to real estate out of a trust, are revocable trusts, irrevocable trusts and so-called “nominee” trusts (most commonly containing the words “Realty Trust” in their name and being the most common form of trust used for real estate title holding purposes). But first, let’s start with some of the basics of trust law. B. CREATION OF TRUSTS 1. The Primary Relationship: Trustee and Beneficiary. 1 To begin with, for our purposes, “No trust concerning land, except such as may arise or result by implication of law, shall be created or declared unless by a written instrument signed by the party creating or declaring the trust or by his attorney.” G.L.
    [Show full text]
  • Uniform Trust Code
    D R A F T FOR DISCUSSION ONLY UNIFORM TRUST CODE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS MARCH 10, 2000 INTERIM DRAFT UNIFORM TRUST CODE WITHOUT PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS Copyright © 2000 By NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS The ideas and conclusions set forth in this draft, including the proposed statutory language and any comments or reporter’s notes, have not been passed upon by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws or the Drafting Committee. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference and its Commissioners and the Drafting Committee and its Members and Reporters. Proposed statutory language may not be used to ascertain the intent or meaning of any promulgated final statutory proposal. UNIFORM TRUST CODE TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE. ............................................................ 1 SECTION 102. SCOPE. ................................................................... 1 SECTION 103. DEFINITIONS. ............................................................. 1 SECTION 104. DEFAULT AND MANDATORY RULES. ...................................... 4 SECTION 105. QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES. ............................................... 5 SECTION 106. NOTICE. .................................................................. 5 SECTION 107. COMMON LAW OF TRUSTS. ................................................ 6 SECTION 108. CHOICE OF LAW. .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • IN the COURT of APPEALS of TENNESSEE at JACKSON May 13, 2015 Session
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON May 13, 2015 Session ROBERT W. MILLS v. NITA D. MILLS, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH1301272 Arnold B. Goldin, Chancellor ________________________________ No. W2014-00855-COA-R3-CV – June 24, 2015 _________________________________ This case involves various causes of action related to the administration of an estate, specifically, the executor‘s action in failing to fund a residuary trust. The trial court granted summary judgment on the grounds that no assets remained in the estate to fund the residuary trust, the expiration of the statute of limitations, and laches. Although we rely on different grounds, we affirm the trial court‘s order granting summary judgment and dismissing the complaint. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed and Remanded J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P. J., W.S., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRANDON O. GIBSON, J., and KENNY ARMSTRONG, J., joined. Lee S. Saunders and Robert Steven Butler, Somerville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Robert W. Mills. Kacey L. Faughnan, Edward T. Autry, and Joseph B. Reafsnyder, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellees, Nita D. Mills, and James Johnson. OPINION Background On January 30, 2013, Plaintiff/Appellant Robert W. Mills (―Appellant‖) filed a Complaint to Compel Disclosure of Residual Trust or Alternatively for Declaratory Judgment and Judicial Estoppel, For Equitable Relief, For Constructive Trust to Prevent Unjust Enrichment, For Resulting Trust, For Accounting and for Injunction against Appellees Nita D. Mills (―Ms. Mills‖ or ―Defendant Mills‖), Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of William B.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 of 4 N.C.P.I.—Civil 865.65 TRUSTS by OPERATION of LAW—PURCHASE MONEY RESULTING TRUST (REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY). GENERAL CIVIL VOLUME JUNE 2014
    Page 1 of 4 N.C.P.I.—Civil 865.65 TRUSTS BY OPERATION OF LAW—PURCHASE MONEY RESULTING TRUST (REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY). GENERAL CIVIL VOLUME JUNE 2014 ------------------------------ 865.65 TRUSTS BY OPERATION OF LAW1 — PURCHASE MONEY RESULTING TRUST (REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY).2 The (state number) issue reads: "[Is] [Was] (identify property) held under a purchase money resulting trust by (name alleged trustee)?" You will note that in this issue I have used the word "trust." A trust is a legal relationship between persons. A trust exists when one person acquires property under circumstances where he incurs a legal duty to handle that property in a particular way so as to benefit another person. A 1 Trusts created by operation of law are classified into resulting trusts and constructive trusts. "[T]he creation of a resulting trust involves the application of the doctrine that valuable consideration rather than legal title determines the equitable title resulting from a transaction; whereas a constructive trust ordinarily arises out of the existence of fraud, actual or presumptive - usually involving the violation of a confidential or fiduciary relation - in view of which equity transfers the beneficial title to some person other than the holder of the legal title. Also, a resulting trust involves a presumption or supposition of law of an intention to create a trust, where as a constructive trust arises independent of any actual or presumed intention of the parties and is usually imposed contrary to the actual intention of the trustee." Bowen v. Darden, 241 N.C. 11, 13-14, 84 S.E.2d 289, 292 (1954).
    [Show full text]
  • Trusts: Express Trusts Where the Trustee Lacks Legal Title Donald J
    Marquette Law Review Volume 48 Article 9 Issue 1 Summer 1964 Recent Decisions: Trusts: Express Trusts Where the Trustee Lacks Legal Title Donald J. Bauhs Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Donald J. Bauhs, Recent Decisions: Trusts: Express Trusts Where the Trustee Lacks Legal Title, 48 Marq. L. Rev. (1964). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol48/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 48 Trusts: Express Trusts Where the Trustee Lacks Legal Title: In Estate of Martin,' it appears from the court's statement of facts, al- though the exact terms of the wili are not set forth, that the testator had intended by his will to create a trust wherein the trustee was to have legal title to the trust assets plus a power of sale over the realty. The testator's wife was to receive the use and income from the trust assets for life, the corpus to pass to the testator's children upon the wife's death. The final decree of distribution in the probate proceedings, how- ever, transferred the property not to the trustee but to the wife, giving her the use and income thereof for life, the corpus to go to the testator's children.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT for the NORTHERN DISTRICT of OKLAHOMA in RE: JOY MARIE PHILLIPS, Debtor. Case No. 13-12959
    Case 14-01006-M Document 46 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 12/23/14 Page 1 of 25 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA Filed/Docketed Dec 23, 2014 IN RE: JOY MARIE PHILLIPS, Case No. 13-12959-M Chapter 7 Debtor. TIFFANY POLLOCK, Personal Representative of the Estate of Frederick E. Phillips, Deceased, Plaintiff, Adv. No. 14-01006-M v. JOY MARIE PHILLIPS, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Complex problems can have simple solutions. Moreover, what appears complicated at first blush is not always so. In this adversary proceeding, the parties have made various and sundry accusations of fraud, misconduct, and other misdealings. The allegations of malfeasance have not been limited to the parties; counsel have taken their best shots at each other as well. However, when one separates the vitriol from the facts, the matter becomes much simpler. So simple, in fact, that summary judgment becomes a real possibility. The sole question before the Court is whether, under Oklahoma law, a probate estate must file a separate action to recover money or property that the probate estate claims to be the rightful owner of, and, if so, whether the probate estate is governed by the same statute of limitations that govern other civil litigants. The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are made pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052. Case 14-01006-M Document 46 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 12/23/14 Page 2 of 25 Jurisdiction This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Mason's Minnesota Statutes, 1927
    1 94 \ Supplement To Mason's Minnesota Statutes, 1927 and #• Mason's 1940 Supplement Containing the text of the acts of the 1941 and 1943 Sessions of the Legislature, both new and amendatory, and notes showing repeals, together with annotations from the various courts, state and federal, and the opinions of the Attorney General, construing the constitution, statutes, charters and court rules of Minnesota together with Law Review Articles and digest of all common law decisions. Edited by the Publisher's Editorial Staff MINNESOTA STATE LAW LIBRARY MASON PUBLISHING CO. SAINT PAUL 1, MINNESOTA 1944 OF MAHOWiSE&W LIBRARY iON §8081 CHAPTER 60 Uses and Trusts 8081. Uses and trusts abolished. That much of trust estate consists of personalty does Provisions of will and deed of trustee conveying audi­ not prevent operation of rule that use of words of in­ torium to city of Red Wing created a gift on condition heritance indicates an intention to pass an absolute in­ and not a charitable trust. Longcor v. C, 206M627, 289 terest. First & American Nat. Bank v. H., 208M295, 293 NW570. See Dun. Dig. 9887. NW585. See Dun. Dig.9888a. Provision in deed making gift of an auditorium to a Where instruments creating trusts manifest an inten­ city on condition that income was to be used for benefit tion that gifts shall be vested, "divide and pay over of auditorium only was valid. Id. See Dun. Dig. 9878. rule" does not prevent vesting. Id. A provision in a trust agreement for a gift in trust to The common law recognized and upheld charitable named beneficiaries "and to their heirs at law by right trusts, but legislature abolished all trusts except those of representation, in accordance with the then laws of authorized by statute.
    [Show full text]