Mary Jane Weiser, appellant, is a daughter of the late Mary Helen Jewell (“Helen”). In 2007, Helen established the “Mary H. Jewell Living Trust,” which she amended in 2011. On December 18, 2011, Helen died. Appellant has a younger sister, Betty Bryant, and a younger brother, Edward Jewell, Jr. Appellant and her sister Betty were named the Successor Trustees under the 2007 Trust, with Helen serving as the initial Trustee. Generally speaking, the 2007 Trust directed that, following Helen’s death, the trust property remaining after the payment of final expenses would be divided in thirds and distributed outright to each of Helen’s three children. The 2011 amendment to Helen’s trust had the effect of removing
appellant as a Trustee, and substituting her brother Edward as Trustee; additionally, rather than an outright distribution to appellant and her siblings of one-third of the remaining Trust corpus, the 2011 amendment directed that appellant’s one-third share be placed in a trust for her, with Betty and Edward as trustees. Betty and Edward were directed to provide appellant with a monthly stipend of $1,400.00, and the amendment empowered Betty and Edward, in their discretion, to pay appellant additional sums out of the Trust assets. The 2011 Amendment did not change the provision in the 2007 Trust that Betty and Edward be paid their one-third shares of the remaining Trust assets outright.

Appellant filed a number of actions in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County challenging Betty and Edward’s management of the Trust and sought, although not timely, to “invalidate” the 2011 amendment based upon her allegations of undue influence. Every action filed by appellant, however, was resolved in favor of Betty and Edward. Although our review of the procedural history of this case appears, at first blush, to be extremely complicated, the resolution of this appeal is not complicated. The docket entries reflect that appellant filed but a single paper which could arguably be considered a notice of appeal, and that notice was timely only with respect to a single interlocutory ruling as to which appellant’s brief contains no argument. The sole document filed by appellant which arguably constituted a notice of appeal was filed October 25, 2013, within 30 days after the circuit court’s orders entered on October 9, 2013, granting summary judgment on the accounting claim. However, appellant’s brief contains no argument addressing those orders as required by Maryland Rule 8-504(a)(6).

Read the full opinion here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *