In Ruth We Trust: How the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Can Promote Women’s Equal Citizenship and Justice Ginsburg’s Legacy

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN

In honor of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman explains how the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) can promote women’s equal citizenship and protect Justice Ginsburg’s legacy of shaping gender equality. Grossman argues that the PWFA could help break down entrenched occupational segregation in the American economy, and, in so doing, honor Justice Ginsburg’s lifelong commitment to ensuring that women can be full members of society.

Read More

A Half Century After Its Publication, What Can “The Greening of America” Tell Us About the United States Today?

RODGER CITRON

In recognition of the 50-year anniversary of the publication of Charles Reich’s “The Greening of America,” Touro law professor Rodger D. Citron explains what Reich actually said in “The Greening,” explains why it generated such a strong response, and reflects on what the piece has to say about the fractures of our current moment. Citron cautions that the promise of a new consciousness is as alluring—and may be as illusory—as it was when Reich wrote the article and book, 50 years ago.

Read More

Bryant v. Carpenter

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

Docket: 1180843

Opinion Date: September 18, 2020

Judge: Mitchell

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Personal Injury, Trusts & Estates

Deitrick Bryant ("Deitrick") committed suicide in his cell while he was an inmate at the Greene County, Alabama jail. Deitrick's mother, as the administrator of his estate, sued two jail employees, alleging that their negligence allowed Deitrick's suicide to happen. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the jail employees, and Deitrick's mother appealed. "The controlling factor in determining whether there may be a recovery for a failure to prevent a suicide is whether the defendants reasonably should have anticipated that the deceased would attempt to harm himself." The Alabama Supreme Court determined Bryant failed to put forth evidence that would allow a factfinder to conclude that jail staff could have anticipated Deitrick's suicide. Accordingly, the summary judgment entered by the trial court was affirmed.

McDorman v. Moseley, Jr.

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

Dockets: 1190820, 1190819

Opinion Date: September 18, 2020

Judge: Sellers

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Trusts & Estates

Virginia McDorman, conservator for Sim Moseley, appealed a probate court judgment awarding Ralph Moseley, Jr., attorney fees pursuant to the Alabama Litigation Accountability Act ("the ALAA"). Sim had a brother, Ralph Carmichael Moseley III ("Mike"), who was born during the marriage of Virginia and Ralph. Sim also had a half brother, Slate McDorman, who was born during the marriage of Virginia and her current husband, Clarence McDorman, Jr. In February 2013, Mike, as brother and next friend of Sim, petitioned the probate court to remove Virginia as Sim's conservator; among other things, he asked Ralph be appointed as successor conservator, and asked for an accounting of the conservatorship. During the pendency of the proceeding, a dispute arose about an IRA Ralph created and funded for Sim's benefit. During discovery, Virginia requested Ralph produce proof of contributions he made to the IRA; Ralph denied an IRA was established. Virginia submitted an accounting, along with a "Settlement Agreement" executed by Sim and by Virginia as conservator releasing Ralph from any and all claims related directly or indirectly to Ralph's funding or removing funds from the IRA Ralph attempted for Sim. Virginia also filed an affidavit signed by Ralph stating he agreed to withdraw any request that Virginia be removed as conservator for Sim's estate and affirming that his payment of $5,000 pursuant to the agreement was in exchange for a full release of all claims against him. In December 2015, more than a year and a half after the agreement and Ralph's affidavit were executed, Virginia and Sim moved to set aside the agreement, alleging Ralph had fraudulently induced them to execute the agreement by failing to truthfully answer discovery and by withholding information about the IRA. They stated Ralph closed the IRA and filed a fraudulent tax return on behalf of Sim, listing the IRA distribution as income, causing Sim to owe federal taxes and impacting his qualification for various governmental disability benefits. Ralph responded that Virginia and Sim were aware of the IRA when they signed the agreement; Ralph requested attorney fees he incurred as a result of responding to and opposing the motion to set aside the agreement. The Alabama Supreme Court determined an award of attorney fees relating to to defending the validity of the agreement in the probate court action was not erroneous; the Court reversed the probate court's amount of fees, remanding the issue for a determination of the appropriate amount of fees attributable to defending the validity of the agreement in the probate court action. In all other respects, the Court affirmed the judgment in favor of Ralph.

Gomez v. Smith

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: C089338(Third Appellate District)

Opinion Date: September 22, 2020

Judge: Ronald B. Robie

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Trusts & Estates

Frank Gomez and plaintiff Louise Gomez rekindled their love over 60 years after Frank broke off their first engagement because he was leaving to serve in the Korean War. Frank’s children from a prior marriage, defendants Tammy Smith and Richard Gomez, did not approve of their marriage. After Frank fell ill, he attempted to establish a new living trust with the intent to provide for Louise during her life. Frank’s illness unfortunately progressed quickly. Frank’s attorney, Erik Aanestad, attempted to have Frank sign the new living trust documents the day after Frank was sent home under hospice care. Aanestad unfortunately never got the chance to speak with Frank because Tammy and Richard intervened and precluded Aanestad from entering Frank’s home. Frank, who was bedridden, died early the following morning. Louise sued Tammy and Richard for intentional interference with expected inheritance, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and elder abuse. Tammy filed a cross-complaint against Louise for recovery of trust property. A trial court issued a statement of decision finding in favor of Louise as to her intentional interference with expected inheritance cause of action and in favor of Tammy and Richard as to the remaining causes of action. The trial court also ruled against Tammy on her cross-complaint. Tammy appealed the judgment in favor of Louise; she did not appeal the trial court’s ruling with regard to her cross-complaint. Tammy argued the judgment should have been reversed because: (1) Louise admitted she did not expect to receive an inheritance; (2) Tammy’s conduct was not tortious independent of her interference; (3) the trial court applied an erroneous legal standard in its capacity analysis; (4) there is no substantial evidence to support the finding that Frank had the capacity to execute the trust documents; (5) the trial court’s finding that Tammy knew Louise expected an inheritance is contradicted by the evidence; and (6) alternatively, the constructive trust remedy is fatally ambiguous. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed.

In re Estate of Cook

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Citation: 2020 MT 240

Opinion Date: September 22, 2020

Judge: Mike McGrath

Areas of Law: Trusts & Estates

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court that Dan Cook's last will and testament be confirmed and admitted to probate and that Kim Smith be appointed personal representative of the estate, holding that, although the district court erred in applying an incorrect burden of proof to determine the validity of the will, the error was harmless. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in concluding that Smith did not exceed her general power of attorney granted her by Cook when she transferred Cook's money; (2) the district court did not err in finding that Cook had the requisite capacity to enter into a valid marriage with Smith shortly before his death; and (3) while the court erred in applying an incorrect burden of proof in determining the validity of Cook's will, the error was harmless because the court's findings of fact were sufficient under the correct burden of proof to support the conclusion that Cook was competent to create and amend a valid will.

Hodges v. Johnson

Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Docket: 2019-0319

Opinion Date: September 23, 2020

Judge: Gary E. Hicks

Areas of Law: Trusts & Estates

Defendants Alan Johnson and William Saturley were the former co-trustees of the 2004 David A. Hodges, Sr. Irrevocable GST Exempt Trust and the 2004 David A. Hodges, Sr. Irrevocable GST Non-Exempt Trust (collectively, the 2004 Trusts). In 2017, the New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld a circuit court decision that set aside “decantings” from the 2004 Trusts and removed the Former Co-Trustees. The Court specifically left “for another day the issue of whether [the Former Co- Trustees] are entitled to indemnification for the fees and expenses incurred in this proceeding” because, at that time, the trial court had not ruled upon the issue. In this appeal, the Former Co-Trustees challenged the determination, recommended by a Judicial Referee and approved by the Circuit Court, that, except for attorney’s fees and costs incurred for certain administrative tasks: (1) they were not entitled to be reimbursed from the 2004 Trusts for the post-trial fees and costs they personally incurred to defend the decantings; and (2) they had to reimburse the 2004 Trusts for the fees and costs the trusts incurred to defend the decantings at trial. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed.

In re Guardianship of D.E.

Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Docket: 2020-0368

Opinion Date: September 18, 2020

Judge: Gary E. Hicks

Areas of Law: Health Law, Trusts & Estates

In February 2020, the 79-year-old ward was a patient at a hospital in Lebanon, New Hampshire. At that time, the hospital filed a petition to appoint a guardian over the ward’s person and estate. The hospital alleged a guardianship was necessary because the ward “has persistent cognitive impairment due to an anoxic brain injury and a major [neurocognitive] disorder,” which “renders him unable to provide for his personal needs for health care, food, clothing, shelter and safety” or to “manage his finances or estate.” The court held a hearing in March at which only the ward’s adult children were present. The ward’s children testified that, in October 2019, when their father was in the intensive care unit, they executed a “Do Not Resuscitate” (DNR) order for him. The ward had no DNR order previously. When the ward’s condition improved and he was transferred to a medical ward, he specifically told his children that he wanted the DNR order removed. Based upon the evidence at the March hearing, the court found that the ward was incapacitated and that a guardianship was necessary as a means of providing for his “continuing care ... and for the prudent management of [his] property and financial affairs.” The court limited the guardian’s authority to execute either a DNR order or an order limiting life-sustaining treatment. In August 2020, the guardian moved for a hearing to ask the court to remove the limitations on her authority regarding the ward’s medical care. The guardian averred that the ward, who now resided in a nursing home, was in need of dialysis but had refused dialysis on three occasions, and refused future treatment. The guardian asserted that, by declining to resume dialysis, “the ward himself has decided to stop his own life sustaining treatment,” and that “without having a DNR order in place and without anyone else having the ability to sign [one],” it will be “quite problematic and painful for the ward.” The ward’s attorney informed the court that the ward was “very clear that he did not want a DNR Order.” Upon interlocuroty transfer without a ruling from the circuit court, the New Hampshire Supreme Court accepted review of issues arising from the ward's guardianship. The Court determined that although the ward had a guardian to make health care decisions on his behalf, the trial court had limited the guardian’s authority to withhold life-sustaining treatment, including whether to execute a DNR order on his behalf. "Under these circumstances, given the ward’s lack of capacity to make health care decisions generally, and assuming that he does not have a valid and unrevoked living will or an authorized agent under a durable power of attorney for health care, the process for appointing a surrogate, as described in RSA 137-J:34-:37, applies. ... Accordingly, it does not appear that at this time, a DNR order may be executed on his behalf by his health care providers."