Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, Eva D. and Lee J. Kelly, appealed the district court's finding that they exercised undue influence over Robert Lee McNeel and invalidated the trust and will in which Mr. McNeel had named Ms. Kelly as one of two beneficiaries in place of his son. Plaintiffs also appealed the district court's grant, in a separate proceeding, to remove Ms. Kelly as Mr. McNeel's guardian and conservator and appointment of the son to replace her. At issue was whether the district court's finding of undue influence and removal of plaintiff as guardian and conservator of Mr. McNeel's trust was clearly erroneous. The court held that, in light of the circumstances, the district court did not err in its order invalidating the 2005 trust amendment and will and that the district court had the authority to remove plaintiff as guardian conservator upon determining that she was not acting in the best interest of Mr. McNeel.

Fifteen-month-old Trayvon Scroggins died in June, 2006 after being hit by a taxicab. Trayvon was survived by his mother, Appellee Evon Medlock, his father, Appellant Tremayne Scoggins, and one sister. Appellant was serving time at a federal penitentiary at the time of Trayvonâs birth and death. Appellee was Trayvonâs sole caregiver, and was named special administratrix of his estate. On opening Trayvonâs estate, Appellee asserted that Appellant was Trayvonâs biological father, but because he was in prison, no claim as a beneficiary would be asserted on his behalf unless it was determined that he was entitled to any benefits under state law. Subsequent to her appointment as administratrix, Appellee filed a wrongful-death and survival action against the cab company. The suit ended in settlement. But at the hearing, the circuit court appointed counsel to represent Appellantâs interests. In 2009, Appellant filed a motion to establish paternity of Trayvon. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the paternity suit, arguing that state law has a mechanism for establishing paternity when one of the parents is dead, but not when the child is dead. Appellee argued that the circuit court could not exercise jurisdiction over a deceased child. The circuit court dismissed the paternity suit, holding it was outside its statutory powers to hear the case. Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals, but that court dismissed the appeal as moot. The Supreme Court was âmindfulâ of Appellantâs assertion that he had a right to participate in Trayvonâs wrongful-death action. Beneficiaries of a wrongful-death action include the surviving parents and siblings. However, the Court held it âwill not read words into a statutory provision that are not there.â The Court affirmed the order of the circuit court dismissing Appellantâs petition.