2 total
Executors who intermeddled with estate required to propound contested will.
In a contested estates proceeding, the applicants sought directions under Rule 75.06 concerning the proper party required to propound a 2013 will of the deceased.
The respondent challenged the validity of the will on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence and requested that the applicants be required to propound it.
The court held that the applicants had “intermeddled” in the estate by taking substantive steps such as applying for a certificate of appointment and administering assets, which precluded them from renouncing their role.
As the individuals most involved in the preparation and execution of the will, they were required to propound it.
The court also directed a trial of issues regarding testamentary capacity and undue influence while declining to adjudicate negligence and fiduciary duty claims within the directions motion.
Interim order granted to implement non-controversial terms of a settlement agreement pending resolution of tax disputes.
The parties executed Minutes of Settlement following a mediation, which required the plaintiff to pay $1,325,000 to the defendant and for a farm property to be vested in the plaintiff.
A dispute arose regarding the tax consequences of the settlement.
Given the delay and the defendant's need for funds, the court issued an interim order implementing the non-controversial terms of the settlement, requiring the immediate payment of the funds into escrow and the registration of the vesting order and collateral mortgage, pending a final decision on the disputed issues.
