Maryland Family Law Maryland family law opinions and commentary

Guardianship — Unjust enrichment — Dead Man’s statute On July 5, 2016, Ronald Mattox and William B. Mattox, as guardians of the person and property of Wanda E. Mattox and Ronald Mattox, individually, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court ...

Estates and trusts — Civil contempt — Attorney’s fees This Court has reviewed multiple cases related to litigation involving Sadie M. Castruccio, appellant, and the estate of her deceased husband, Dr. Peter A. Castruccio (the “Estate”), appellee.1 In this appeal, ...

Estates and trusts — Personal representative — Removal This appeal from an order of the Orphans’ Court for Baltimore County involves the removal of Appellant, Vincent Fava (“Vincent”), as Personal Representative of the Estate of his father, Salvatore Fava (“Mr. ...

Estates and trusts — Terms of agreement — Binding The cases before us began with the death of Dr. Dinesh O. Parikh (“Dr. Parikh”) on June 18, 2016. Dr. Parikh had lived and worked in both India and North Carolina. ...

Estates and trusts — Breach of notarial duty — Collateral estoppel This case is one of several lawsuits, the sixth to come before this Court on appeal,1 relating to the estate (the “Estate”) of the appellant’s husband, Peter Castruccio (“Peter”). ...

Wills — Construction — Extrinsic evidence After mounting an unsuccessful challenge to the validity of her late husband’s will, a widow contended that, as a matter of law, she was nonetheless entitled to receive virtually all of his estate under ...

ST. LOUIS — A St. Louis County judge upheld a version of real estate magnate Robert Kaplan’s trust that left tens of millions of dollars in assets to his widow. In a Thursday judgment, St. Louis County Circuit Judge Carolyn ...

MOTION TO REMOVE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE -- FAILURE TO FILE BOND ON TIMELY BASIS This appeal arises from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County, the Honorable William C. Mulford, II, presiding, affirming an order of the Orphans’ Court for Anne Arundel County. The Orphans’ Court’s order denied Diane Carey’s motion to hold John J. Ryan, personal representative of the estate of Vincent B. Turecamo—the father of Ms. Carey—in contempt and to remove him as the personal representative of Mr. Turecamo’s estate. Ms. Carey presents twelve issues on appeal but in our view they can be consolidated into one: Did the Circuit Court err in denying Ms. Carey’s motion?

NOTICE OF APPEAL -- APPELLATE BRIEFS 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).

The “Proposed Findings and Order” of the juvenile court, directing that Dustin R. should continue to receive services for his developmental disabilities once he turned 21, was not a final order from which an appeal could be taken