Blumenshine v. Kastler
34,308 34,398 35,032
| N.M. Ct. App. | Nov 8, 2016Background
- Gretchen Sammis owned the historic Chase Ranch and in January 2004 executed a Last Will and a Revocable Trust leaving her property to the Gretchen Sammis Revocable Trust and the Chase Ranch Charitable Foundation; she named Paul Kastler and Edward Pease as co-personal representatives/trustees (Ruby Gobble was a co-representative/trustee and Pearson an alternate trustee).
- Sammis left two handwritten lists (1995 and 1997) giving certain personal items (silver, jewelry) to Joan Blumenshine; Sammis’ will otherwise omitted leaving property to Blumenshine.
- Sammis died in 2012; Respondents applied for informal probate and mistakenly listed Pearson as a devisee in the probate application (later acknowledged as a mistake).
- Blumenshine and her daughter Cathy Pearson sued Respondents alleging conversion, tortious interference with an expected inheritance, and undue influence, and sought to set aside the will; Petitioners later abandoned the tortious-interference and undue-influence claims at the district-court motions hearing.
- The district court dismissed Pearson for lack of standing, granted summary judgment for Respondents on the remaining conversion claim against Blumenshine, and imposed Rule 1-011 sanctions against Petitioners and their counsel for filing a frivolous, scandalous complaint.
- The Court of Appeals consolidated three appeals and affirmed: (1) dismissal of Pearson for lack of standing, (2) summary judgment against Blumenshine, and (3) Rule 1-011 sanctions; remanded only to quantify sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of Pearson to contest will/trust | Pearson is an "interested person" under UPC provisions, was listed as a devisee in the probate application, and was named as a successor/alternate trustee | UPC definitions control; Pearson is Sammis’ niece (not an heir or devisee), the probate application mistake does not create devisee status, UTC limitations provisions do not confer standing | Pearson lacks standing; dismissal affirmed |
| Summary judgment on conversion claim (Blumenshine) | Credibility disputes and incomplete discovery precluded summary judgment; factual issues remain about property entitlement | Respondents presented undisputed material facts and record evidence; Petitioners failed to controvert with sworn evidence or specify needed discovery | No genuine issue of material fact shown; summary judgment for Respondents affirmed |
| Rule 1-011 sanctions against Petitioners and counsel | Claims were filed in subjective good faith and to challenge perceived legal injustices; alternative sanctions unnecessary | Pleadings contained unsupported, scandalous allegations; counsel admitted lack of factual basis for key claims; Rule 1-011 sanctions appropriate | District court did not abuse discretion imposing sanctions; affirm and remand to determine amount |
| Judicial estoppel re: probate-application listing | Petitioners argued Respondents should be estopped from denying Pearson was a devisee because probate application listed her as a devisee | Respondents’ inclusion of Pearson in the application was a mistake and they never relied on it to their advantage | Judicial estoppel did not apply; no successful prior litigation position to estop Respondents |
Key Cases Cited
- N.M. Gamefowl Ass’n v. State ex rel. King, 215 P.3d 67 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (standing as question of law; pleadings construed in favor of complainant for motions to dismiss)
- Self v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 970 P.2d 582 (N.M. 1998) (summary judgment standard; review de novo)
- Juneau v. Intel Corp., 127 P.3d 548 (N.M. 2006) (credibility conflicts may preclude summary judgment when material facts are disputed)
- Wilson v. Fritschy, 55 P.3d 997 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002) (elements and standards for tortious interference with an expected inheritance; harmonizing trust and probate law)
- Rivera v. Brazos Lodge Corp., 808 P.2d 955 (N.M. 1991) (purpose and scope of Rule 1-011 sanctions to deter baseless filings)
- In re Estate of Gardner, 845 P.2d 1247 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992) (duties of personal representatives; breach of fiduciary duty in probate contexts)
- Landess v. Gardner Turf Grass, Inc., 198 P.3d 871 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008) (Rule 1-011 sanctions appealability and subjective standard for counsel’s knowledge at time of filing)