Latest 3 Cases This Week: In re Estate of Horst Revocable Trust (Nev.), In re Estate of Scheide (Nev.), In re Estate of Shaffer (Ohio)

One More for the Road: Why Congress Must Impeach Donald Trump (Again)

DEAN FALVY

Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, makes the case for impeaching Donald Trump again, after the failed insurrection of January 6. Falvy describes three possible ways to disempower Trump from undermining democracy in our nation and explains why immediate impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate is the most appropriate course of action.

Read More

In re Estate of Horst Revocable Trust

Court: Supreme Court of Nevada

Citation: 136 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 90

Opinion Date: December 31, 2020

Judge: Cadish

Areas of Law: Trusts & Estates

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court concluding that a residual beneficiary's objection to the second and third amendments to the Ella E. Horst Revocable Trust was time-barred under Nev. Rev. Stat. 164.021(4), holding that the objection was timely. Following the settlor's death, Respondent, the trustee, sent notice of irrevocability to the Trust's beneficiaries pursuant to section 164.021. The notice included copies of the original Trust and the Trust's first three amendments. Sixteen months later, Respondent petitioned to confirm a purported fourth amendment to the Trust. Appellant, a residual beneficiary, filed an objection, alleging that the second through fourth amendments were the product of undue influence. The district court confirmed the original Trust and its first three amendments, concluding that Appellant's objection to the amendments was time-barred under section 164.021(4), which provides a window of 120 days from service of the notice of irrevocability for bringing an action to challenge a trust's validity. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) to trigger the 120-day limitation period under section 164.021(4), the trustee's notice must include all trust provisions pertaining to the beneficiary; (2) because Respondent's initial notice to beneficiaries did not include the purported fourth amendment, the notice did not trigger the 120-day limitation period; and (3) therefore, Appellant's objection was timely.

In re Estate of Scheide

Court: Supreme Court of Nevada

Citation: 136 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 84

Opinion Date: December 31, 2020

Judge: Silver

Areas of Law: Trusts & Estates

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying St. Jude children's Research Hospital's petition to probate Theodore Scheide, Jr.'s lost will, holding that St. Jude met its burden to show the will was in legal existence and satisfied Nev. Rev. Stat. 136.240(3)'s requirement that two witnesses prove the will's provisions. Theodore's original will disinherited his biological son, Chip, and left his estate to St. Jude. After Theodore died, the original will could not be found, so St. Jude petitioned to probate the lost will. Chip argued that Theodore revoked the will by destruction and that St. Jude's witnesses did not satisfy section 136.240(3). The district court denied the petition, leaving Chip free to inherit the estate through intestate succession. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the evidence supported the conclusion that the will was in legal existence at Theodore's death; and (2) section 136.240(3)'s two-witness requirement was satisfied in this case.

In re Estate of Shaffer

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Citation: 2020-Ohio-6973

Opinion Date: December 31, 2020

Judge: Donnelly

Areas of Law: Trusts & Estates

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that Ohio Rev. Code 2107.15 does not apply to essential witnesses to a remediated will, holding that the voiding provision of section 2107.15 applies equally to essential witnesses to both formally compliant and remediated wills. Noting that Ohio Rev. Code 2107.03, which governs the formal requirements for the execution of a written will, and section 2107.15, which voids a will's devise to a witness if that witness was essential to establishing the validity of the will, mention "competent" witnesses but that Ohio Rev. Code 2107.24, which provides a process for admitting a purported will to probate despite its failure to fully adhere to the formal requirements, does not, the court of appeals concluded that section 2107.24 eliminates the requirement of witness competency. Therefore, the court of appeals held that the voiding provision of section 2107.15 does not apply to essential witnesses to a remediated will. The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the court of appeals' judgment related to section 2107.15, holding that the statute applies both to wills executed in compliance with section 2107.03 and those submitted pursuant to section 2107.24.