IMO The Irene Eisenberg Trust U/A/D May 11, 2012
CA 12207-MZ
| Del. Ch. | Jul 26, 2017Background
- Stanley Eisenberg, co-trustee, petitioned to reform the Irene Eisenberg Trust (dated May 11, 2012), alleging a scrivener’s error had incorporated beneficiaries the settlor intended to exclude (Stanley, his family, and Walter).
- Petition relied on the settlor’s August 8, 2014 affidavit, a scrivener’s affidavit, and other estate documents; nearly all potential beneficiaries filed consents or non-objections except beneficiary Jordan Brandon.
- Jordan (Stanley’s grandson) appeared pro se after turning eighteen and opposed reformation, alleging the settlor intended to benefit him and his mother and asserting undue influence by Stanley; he submitted documents, photos, videos, and a 2014 letter from the scrivener.
- Walter moved for judgment on the pleadings; the Master treated the motion as one for summary judgment because Jordan’s submissions raised matters outside the pleadings.
- The Master found Jordan’s submissions created genuine issues of material fact on settlor intent and evidentiary weight (settlor affidavit, scrivener affidavit, consents), and recommended denial of Walter’s summary judgment motion.
- The matter was referred to mediation (fees payable from the trust); discovery and logistics orders were issued (responses, travel reimbursement, mediation attendance).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Trust may be reformed for a scrivener’s mistake | Stanley (petitioner) argues settlor intended to exclude Stanley, his family, and Walter; scrivener’s error included them | Walter argues documentary evidence (settlor affidavit, scrivener affidavit, consents) supports reformation and no dispute of material fact | Denied summary judgment for Walter; genuine issues of material fact exist about settlor intent and mistake |
| Evidentiary weight of settlor’s post-execution affidavit and scrivener’s affidavit | Stanley relies on the settlor’s 2014 affidavit and the scrivener’s affidavit to prove intent/mistake | Walter contends affidavits support reformation and are entitled to dispositive weight | Master concluded weight is disputed; affidavits do not negate genuine factual disputes |
| Sufficiency of beneficiaries’ consents/non-objections | Petitioners argue consents show settlor intent and support reformation | Jordan argues consents may have been procured under undue influence or do not reflect settlor’s true intent | Consents raise factual disputes regarding voluntariness and probative value; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Procedural sufficiency of Jordan’s late, pro se submissions | Walter contended Jordan’s materials were untimely, informal, and broad | Jordan, pro se, argued submissions raised substantive defenses (undue influence, settlor intent) and should be considered | Court accepted Jordan’s filings (given pro se status) and found they create triable issues; denied summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Telxon Corp. v. Meyerson, 802 A.2d 257 (Del. 2002) (summary judgment is discretionary; no right to summary judgment).
- Merrill v. Crothall‑American, Inc., 606 A.2d 96 (Del. 1992) (on summary judgment, courts view evidence in the light most favorable to non-moving party).
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970) (standard for viewing evidence on summary judgment).
- In re Trust Under Will of Flint for the Benefit of Shadek, 118 A.3d 182 (Del. Ch. 2015) (trust reformation after settlor’s death requires clear and affirmative proof of mistake).
- Roos v. Roos, 203 A.2d 140 (Del. Ch. 1964) (principle that trusts may be reformed to conform to settlor’s intent when mistake is shown).