IN RE ESTATE OF HOMER P. NORTON (Tenn. Ct. App. February 23, 2012)
This lawsuit was filed by the decedent’s nephew and the nephew’s wife alleging that the caretakers of the decedent improperly influenced him to change his will. The proponents of the decedent’s will filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that no confidential relationship existed between the decedent and the caretakers in regard to the will. The trial court granted the proponents’ motion, finding that proof of a confidential relationship was necessary to pursue a will contest on the ground of undue influence, and that no such confidential relationship existed between decedent and the caretakers. The contestants appeal. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/nortonh_022312.pdf
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
Court reviews whether a claimant is entitled to reimbursement for mortgage payments submitted on behalf of the decedent
IN RE ESTATE OF MARSHAL SAN MIGUEL (Tenn. Ct. App. February 10, 2012)
Michael San Miguel ("Claimant") filed a claim against his brother's estate, Marshal San Miguel ("Decedent"), alleging that Decedent was responsible for expenses and mortgage payments relating to their jointly-owned Louisiana property. Decedent's son, Nicholas Brandon San Miguel ("Beneficiary"), filed an exception to the claim. The clerk and master disallowed the claim. Claimant objected to the clerk and master's report, and the trial court precluded recovery. Claimant appeals. We reverse the court's preclusion of recovery of the mortgage payments and expenses and conclude that Claimant is entitled to reimbursement for the mortgage payments submitted on behalf of Decedent and a portion of the expenses incurred on behalf of the property. We affirm the court's decision in all other respects.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/miguelm_021012.pdf
Michael San Miguel ("Claimant") filed a claim against his brother's estate, Marshal San Miguel ("Decedent"), alleging that Decedent was responsible for expenses and mortgage payments relating to their jointly-owned Louisiana property. Decedent's son, Nicholas Brandon San Miguel ("Beneficiary"), filed an exception to the claim. The clerk and master disallowed the claim. Claimant objected to the clerk and master's report, and the trial court precluded recovery. Claimant appeals. We reverse the court's preclusion of recovery of the mortgage payments and expenses and conclude that Claimant is entitled to reimbursement for the mortgage payments submitted on behalf of Decedent and a portion of the expenses incurred on behalf of the property. We affirm the court's decision in all other respects.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/miguelm_021012.pdf
Court reviews an appeal filed by the personal representative of an estate
IN RE ESTATE OF REGINALD BOYA DEMONBREUN (Tenn. Ct. App. February 9, 2012)
The decedent and a partner purchased property which became the decedent's residence. In 2009, the partner quitclaimed his half of the property, worth $35,000, to the decedent. They executed a promissory note stating that the decedent would pay $600 per month until the balance was paid in full.
When the decedent died, he still owed $27,900 to the partner. The partner filed a claim for the unpaid balance but could only provide a copy of the promissory note because he could not find the original. The probate court found that the photocopy was permissible and granted his claim for $27,500.
The personal representative appealed the order on the grounds that the best evidence rule should have barred the photocopy. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court had not committed any error and affirmed their ruling.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/demonbreunr_020912.pdf
The decedent and a partner purchased property which became the decedent's residence. In 2009, the partner quitclaimed his half of the property, worth $35,000, to the decedent. They executed a promissory note stating that the decedent would pay $600 per month until the balance was paid in full.
When the decedent died, he still owed $27,900 to the partner. The partner filed a claim for the unpaid balance but could only provide a copy of the promissory note because he could not find the original. The probate court found that the photocopy was permissible and granted his claim for $27,500.
The personal representative appealed the order on the grounds that the best evidence rule should have barred the photocopy. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court had not committed any error and affirmed their ruling.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/demonbreunr_020912.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)