In Re Elizabeth A. Briggs Revocable Living Trust
2017 SD 40
S.D.2017Background
- Elizabeth A. Briggs executed a revocable trust and amended it in 2009 and 2012 to expressly disinherit her son, Thomas, leaving assets to daughter Judith.
- After Elizabeth died in July 2013, Thomas received trust copies and a SDCL 55-4-57(a)(2) notice advising he had 60 days to commence any judicial proceeding contesting the trust.
- Thomas did not file a formal court action within 60 days; he sent an unsigned, pro se “Notice of Objection” by email and mail that identified no grounds or requested relief.
- Nearly two years later (April 2015) Thomas filed a petition alleging the amendments were invalid due to lack of capacity and undue influence, and alleging breach of fiduciary duty and seeking an accounting.
- The trustee, Judith, moved to dismiss; the circuit court dismissed Thomas’s petition as untimely under SDCL 55-4-57(a) and for lack of jurisdiction and standing on the other claims. Thomas appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thomas) | Defendant's Argument (Judith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SDCL 55-4-57(a)’s 60-day/one-year limits bar Thomas’s capacity and undue-influence claims | The general six-year statute of limitations (SDCL 15-2-13) should govern; 55-4-57(a) should not bar these claims | 55-4-57(a) is a specific time bar (statute of limitations/repose) for contests of whether a trust or amendment was validly created, and it applies to capacity/undue influence | Court held 55-4-57(a) applies and bars the untimely capacity and undue-influence claims |
| Whether Thomas’s pro se Notice of Objection satisfied 55-4-57(a) (substantial compliance/equitable tolling) | His Notice of Objection submitted within 60 days substantially complied; equitable tolling applies given pro se status | 55-4-57(a) is a statute of limitations requiring strict compliance; his notice did not identify objections or commence a proceeding so it failed to serve the statute’s purpose | Court held substantial compliance/equitable tolling do not apply; notice was insufficient and claims are time-barred |
| Whether the court could adjudicate Thomas’s breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim against Judith | Breach arose from Judith’s alleged undue influence as caregiver; claim should proceed | Thomas did not name or serve Judith in her individual capacity; court lacks in personam jurisdiction to adjudicate an individual tort claim in the trust contest | Court dismissed the breach claim for lack of in personam jurisdiction because Judith was not sued individually |
| Whether Thomas had standing to demand an accounting | As an heir/former beneficiary or person with potential interest, he may request an accounting | Thomas was expressly disinherited by amendment and, having failed to timely contest, lacks any interest; thus no standing | Court held Thomas lacked standing to demand an accounting and dismissed that claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Sisney v. State, 754 N.W.2d 639 (S.D. 2008) (standard of review for motion to dismiss)
- Hass v. Wentzlaff, 816 N.W.2d 96 (S.D. 2012) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- In re Estate of Linnell, 388 N.W.2d 881 (S.D. 1986) (undue influence invalidates testamentary instruments)
- In re Lanning, 565 N.W.2d 794 (S.D. 1997) (testator lacked capacity; amendments denied)
- Murray v. Mansheim, 779 N.W.2d 379 (S.D. 2010) (strict compliance required where statute of limitations applies)
- O’Toole v. Bd. of Trs. of S.D. Ret. Sys., 648 N.W.2d 342 (S.D. 2002) (breach of fiduciary duty sounds in tort)
- Spiska Eng’g, Inc. v. SPM Thermo-Shield, Inc., 798 N.W.2d 683 (S.D. 2011) (court cannot adjudicate claims against nonparties absent personal jurisdiction)
- Stern Oil Co. v. Border States Paving, Inc., 848 N.W.2d 273 (S.D. 2014) (equitable tolling limited to extraordinary circumstances)
- Peterson ex rel. Peterson v. Burns, 635 N.W.2d 556 (S.D. 2001) (distinction between statutes of limitations and repose)
- Delany v. Delany, 402 N.W.2d 701 (S.D. 1987) (application of longer limitations in some deed/incapacity contexts)
- In re Matheny Family Tr., 859 N.W.2d 609 (S.D. 2015) (limitations discussion in related trust/contract context)