Latest 5 Cases This Week: United States v. Harris (9th Cir.), In re Estate of Joseph C. Gantner III (Iowa), Estate of Nohle (North Dakota Supreme ...
Thanks!
Curtis D. Harris, BS, CGREA, REB
Associate Degree in Architecture, LACCBachelor of Science in Real Estate, CSULA
State Certified General Appraiser
Real Estate Broker
ASTM E-2018 Commercial Real Estate Inspector
HUD 203k Consultant
HUD/FHA Real Estate Appraiser/Reviewer
FannieMae REO ConsultantCTAC LEED-GREEN Certificate The Harris Company, Forensic Appraisers and Real Estate Consultants
*PIRS/Harris Company and the Science of Real Estate-Partners Since 1984*630 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 9A
El Segundo, CA. 90245
310-337-1973 Office
310-251-3959 CellWebSite: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com Resume: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com/rESUME2011.pdf Commercial Appraiser Blog: http://commercialappraiser.typepad.com/blog/ IT'S THE LAW-Designation Discrimination is Illegal [FIRREA, Sec. 564.6]: Professional Association Membership: "A State Certified General Appraiser may not be excluded from consideration for an assignment for a federally related transaction by virtue of membership or lack of membership in any particular appraisal organization," including the appraisal institute. http://www.ofi.state.la.us/re-otspart565.pdf CONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to consultant/appraiser-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please destroy all copies received and confirm destruction to the sender via return transmittal.
From: Trusts & Estates - Justia Weekly Opinion Summaries [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Trusts & Estates - Justia Weekly Opinion Summaries
Sent: Friday, 28 April, 2017 7:04 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Latest 5 Cases This Week: United States v. Harris (9th Cir.), In re Estate of Joseph C. Gantner III (Iowa), Estate of Nohle (North Dakota Supreme ...
Free Trusts & Estates case summaries from Justia.
If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.Trusts & Estates
April 28, 2017
Table of ContentsUnited States v. HarrisCriminal Law, Trusts & Estates U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitIn re Estate of Joseph C. Gantner IIITrusts & Estates Iowa Supreme CourtEstate of NohleCivil Procedure, Trusts & Estates, Real Estate & Property Law North Dakota Supreme CourtIn re Estate of EdwardsTrusts & Estates Montana Supreme CourtIn re Estate of PluhacekTrusts & Estates Nebraska Supreme Court
New on VerdictLegal Analysis and CommentaryMr. No-Government President Discovers the Government MARCI A. HAMILTON Marci A. Hamilton, a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, describes how the separation of powers built into U.S. democracy is working as it should to prevent abuses of power by, at this time, the executive.Read More
Trusts & Estates OpinionsUnited States v. Harris Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDocket: 16-10152 Opinion Date: April 20, 2017Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Trusts & Estates In 1997, Michael Harris was convicted of eight federal criminal counts related to theft from an employee benefit plan. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison and ordered to pay $646,000 in restitution. He paid only a small fraction of that amount. The government later learned that Harris was a beneficiary of two irrevocable, discretionary trusts established by his parents for his support. In 2015, the government applied for a writ of continuing garnishment for any property distributed to Harris from the trusts. The trustees opposed the application on the ground that Harris had disclaimed his interest in the trusts, with the exception of several checking and investment accounts. The district court granted the writ and ordered the trustees to pay to the United States all current and future amounts distributed to Harris under the trusts. After review, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Harris’s interest in the trusts qualified as property under the federal debt collection procedure that applied in this case. “The government is not attempting to compel distributions from the trusts. However, any current or future distributions from the trusts to Harris shall be subject to the continuing writ of garnishment, until the restitution judgment is satisfied.”Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.In re Estate of Joseph C. Gantner III Court: Iowa Supreme CourtDocket: 161028 Opinion Date: April 21, 2017Judge: Edward M. Mansfield Areas of Law: Trusts & Estates Joseph Gantner died in 2015, survived by his wife, Rachel Gantner, and two daughters, Meredith and Paige Gantner. After Joseph’s will was admitted to probate, Rachel filed for an elective share of Joseph’s estate and also requested a spousal support allowance. Meredith and Paige resisted Rachel’s application for spousal support, maintaining that several individual retirement accounts (IRAs) did not constitute part of the probate estate and, therefore, were beyond the reach of Rachel’s spousal allowance. As relevant to this appeal, Rachel was not a beneficiary of those IRAs. Rather, the executor confirmed that Meredith and Paige were their cobeneficaries. The probate court denied Rachel’s application for spousal allowance, concluding that the IRAs could not be used to pay an allowance to Rachel, who was not a beneficiary of those IRAs. Rachel appealed, arguing that she may reach the IRAs because they were “a transfer at death of a security registered in beneficiary form” under Iowa Code 633D.8. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that chapter 633D does not apply to an IRA where one or more nonspouses are designated the beneficiaries.Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.Estate of Nohle Court: North Dakota Supreme CourtCitation: 2017 ND 100 Opinion Date: April 25, 2017Judge: Tufte Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Trusts & Estates, Real Estate & Property Law Dori Lentz appealed an order and judgment denying her request to modify the distribution decrees of the Estate of Charlotte C. Nohle and ordering her to pay the estate's attorney's fees. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the requested modification or by awarding attorney's fees.Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.In re Estate of Edwards Court: Montana Supreme CourtCitation: 2017 MT 93 Opinion Date: April 25, 2017Judge: Beth Baker Areas of Law: Trusts & Estates In 2010, Helen Edwards executed a will and created a trust leaving the majority of her estate to her niece, G.G. Verone. In 2014, Edwards executed a new will and amended her trust by leaving much of her estate to her handyman, Paul Degel, and to her housekeeper, Nancy Schulz. After Edwards died, Schulz petitioned for probate of the 2012 will. Verone cross-petitioned for probate of the 2010 will and for validation of the 2010 trust. A jury found in a special verdict that Degel or Schulz procured the 2012 will and 2012 trust by undue influence, fraud, or duress. The trial court, however, denied Verone’s requests to admit the 2010 will to probate, to validate the 2010 trust, and for attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) substantial credible evidence existed to support the jury’s findings that the 2012 will and the 2012 trust were procured by undue influence, fraud, or duress; (2) the district court erred in refusing to admit the 2010 will to probate or to enforce the 2010 trust following the jury’s special verdict; and (3) the district court erred in refusing to award Verone attorney fees and certain costs.Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.In re Estate of Pluhacek Court: Nebraska Supreme CourtCitation: 296 Neb. 528 Opinion Date: April 27, 2017Judge: Lindsey Miller-Lerman Areas of Law: Trusts & Estates Dorothy Pluhacek died at 100 years of age. Thereafter, Margaret Hickey, the Provincial Superioress of the Omaha province of the Notre Dame Sisters, filed an application for information probate of a document that Hickey claimed to be Pluhacek’s valid will. The county court denied informal probate of the document, concluding that the document, which was signed by Pluhacek, did not qualify as a will because the material provisions were in Pluhacek’s handwriting and that a formal proceeding would be required to determine whether Pluhacek had left a valid holographic will. Hickey then filed an amended petition for formal probate of the document. The county court denied formal probate, concluding that because Hicky had not established that the document was in Pluhacek’s handwriting, it was not admissible as a holographic will. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) as a matter of law, the document was a properly executed will under Neb. Rev. Stat. 30-2327; and (2) therefore, the county court erred when it denied formal probate. Remanded for formal probate.Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.
About Justia Opinion SummariesJustia Weekly Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 63 different newsletters, each covering a different practice area.Justia also provides 68 daily jurisdictional newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all U.S. states.All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.You may freely redistribute this email in whole.About JustiaJustia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.
Contact Us| Privacy Policy
Unsubscribe From This Newsletter
or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.
Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043
Thanks!
Curtis D. Harris, BS, CGREA, REB
Associate Degree in Architecture, LACCBachelor of Science in Real Estate, CSULA
State Certified General Appraiser
Real Estate Broker
ASTM E-2018 Commercial Real Estate Inspector
HUD 203k Consultant
HUD/FHA Real Estate Appraiser/Reviewer
FannieMae REO ConsultantCTAC LEED-GREEN Certificate The Harris Company, Forensic Appraisers and Real Estate Consultants
*PIRS/Harris Company and the Science of Real Estate-Partners Since 1984*630 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 9A
El Segundo, CA. 90245
310-337-1973 Office
310-251-3959 CellWebSite: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com Resume: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com/rESUME2011.pdf Commercial Appraiser Blog: http://commercialappraiser.typepad.com/blog/ IT'S THE LAW-Designation Discrimination is Illegal [FIRREA, Sec. 564.6]: Professional Association Membership: "A State Certified General Appraiser may not be excluded from consideration for an assignment for a federally related transaction by virtue of membership or lack of membership in any particular appraisal organization," including the appraisal institute. http://www.ofi.state.la.us/re-otspart565.pdf CONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to consultant/appraiser-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please destroy all copies received and confirm destruction to the sender via return transmittal.
From: Trusts & Estates - Justia Weekly Opinion Summaries [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Trusts & Estates - Justia Weekly Opinion Summaries
Sent: Friday, 28 April, 2017 7:04 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Latest 5 Cases This Week: United States v. Harris (9th Cir.), In re Estate of Joseph C. Gantner III (Iowa), Estate of Nohle (North Dakota Supreme ...
Free Trusts & Estates case summaries from Justia.
If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.Trusts & Estates
April 28, 2017
Table of ContentsUnited States v. HarrisCriminal Law, Trusts & Estates U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitIn re Estate of Joseph C. Gantner IIITrusts & Estates Iowa Supreme CourtEstate of NohleCivil Procedure, Trusts & Estates, Real Estate & Property Law North Dakota Supreme CourtIn re Estate of EdwardsTrusts & Estates Montana Supreme CourtIn re Estate of PluhacekTrusts & Estates Nebraska Supreme Court
New on VerdictLegal Analysis and CommentaryMr. No-Government President Discovers the Government MARCI A. HAMILTON Marci A. Hamilton, a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, describes how the separation of powers built into U.S. democracy is working as it should to prevent abuses of power by, at this time, the executive.Read More
Trusts & Estates OpinionsUnited States v. Harris Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDocket: 16-10152 Opinion Date: April 20, 2017Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Trusts & Estates In 1997, Michael Harris was convicted of eight federal criminal counts related to theft from an employee benefit plan. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison and ordered to pay $646,000 in restitution. He paid only a small fraction of that amount. The government later learned that Harris was a beneficiary of two irrevocable, discretionary trusts established by his parents for his support. In 2015, the government applied for a writ of continuing garnishment for any property distributed to Harris from the trusts. The trustees opposed the application on the ground that Harris had disclaimed his interest in the trusts, with the exception of several checking and investment accounts. The district court granted the writ and ordered the trustees to pay to the United States all current and future amounts distributed to Harris under the trusts. After review, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Harris’s interest in the trusts qualified as property under the federal debt collection procedure that applied in this case. “The government is not attempting to compel distributions from the trusts. However, any current or future distributions from the trusts to Harris shall be subject to the continuing writ of garnishment, until the restitution judgment is satisfied.”Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.In re Estate of Joseph C. Gantner III Court: Iowa Supreme CourtDocket: 161028 Opinion Date: April 21, 2017Judge: Edward M. Mansfield Areas of Law: Trusts & Estates Joseph Gantner died in 2015, survived by his wife, Rachel Gantner, and two daughters, Meredith and Paige Gantner. After Joseph’s will was admitted to probate, Rachel filed for an elective share of Joseph’s estate and also requested a spousal support allowance. Meredith and Paige resisted Rachel’s application for spousal support, maintaining that several individual retirement accounts (IRAs) did not constitute part of the probate estate and, therefore, were beyond the reach of Rachel’s spousal allowance. As relevant to this appeal, Rachel was not a beneficiary of those IRAs. Rather, the executor confirmed that Meredith and Paige were their cobeneficaries. The probate court denied Rachel’s application for spousal allowance, concluding that the IRAs could not be used to pay an allowance to Rachel, who was not a beneficiary of those IRAs. Rachel appealed, arguing that she may reach the IRAs because they were “a transfer at death of a security registered in beneficiary form” under Iowa Code 633D.8. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that chapter 633D does not apply to an IRA where one or more nonspouses are designated the beneficiaries.Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.Estate of Nohle Court: North Dakota Supreme CourtCitation: 2017 ND 100 Opinion Date: April 25, 2017Judge: Tufte Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Trusts & Estates, Real Estate & Property Law Dori Lentz appealed an order and judgment denying her request to modify the distribution decrees of the Estate of Charlotte C. Nohle and ordering her to pay the estate's attorney's fees. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the requested modification or by awarding attorney's fees.Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.In re Estate of Edwards Court: Montana Supreme CourtCitation: 2017 MT 93 Opinion Date: April 25, 2017Judge: Beth Baker Areas of Law: Trusts & Estates In 2010, Helen Edwards executed a will and created a trust leaving the majority of her estate to her niece, G.G. Verone. In 2014, Edwards executed a new will and amended her trust by leaving much of her estate to her handyman, Paul Degel, and to her housekeeper, Nancy Schulz. After Edwards died, Schulz petitioned for probate of the 2012 will. Verone cross-petitioned for probate of the 2010 will and for validation of the 2010 trust. A jury found in a special verdict that Degel or Schulz procured the 2012 will and 2012 trust by undue influence, fraud, or duress. The trial court, however, denied Verone’s requests to admit the 2010 will to probate, to validate the 2010 trust, and for attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) substantial credible evidence existed to support the jury’s findings that the 2012 will and the 2012 trust were procured by undue influence, fraud, or duress; (2) the district court erred in refusing to admit the 2010 will to probate or to enforce the 2010 trust following the jury’s special verdict; and (3) the district court erred in refusing to award Verone attorney fees and certain costs.Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.In re Estate of Pluhacek Court: Nebraska Supreme CourtCitation: 296 Neb. 528 Opinion Date: April 27, 2017Judge: Lindsey Miller-Lerman Areas of Law: Trusts & Estates Dorothy Pluhacek died at 100 years of age. Thereafter, Margaret Hickey, the Provincial Superioress of the Omaha province of the Notre Dame Sisters, filed an application for information probate of a document that Hickey claimed to be Pluhacek’s valid will. The county court denied informal probate of the document, concluding that the document, which was signed by Pluhacek, did not qualify as a will because the material provisions were in Pluhacek’s handwriting and that a formal proceeding would be required to determine whether Pluhacek had left a valid holographic will. Hickey then filed an amended petition for formal probate of the document. The county court denied formal probate, concluding that because Hicky had not established that the document was in Pluhacek’s handwriting, it was not admissible as a holographic will. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) as a matter of law, the document was a properly executed will under Neb. Rev. Stat. 30-2327; and (2) therefore, the county court erred when it denied formal probate. Remanded for formal probate.Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.
About Justia Opinion SummariesJustia Weekly Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 63 different newsletters, each covering a different practice area.Justia also provides 68 daily jurisdictional newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all U.S. states.All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.You may freely redistribute this email in whole.About JustiaJustia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.
Contact Us| Privacy Policy
Unsubscribe From This Newsletter
or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.
Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043
commercial appraiser, commercial appraisal, commercial appraiser la
Comments