AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• James A. Borland, after marrying Audrey Butler Borland and becoming a stepfather to her daughters, executed a revocable trust naming himself as the primary beneficiary during his lifetime, with the remainder to be distributed to Butler upon his death, and if Butler predeceased him, to distribute fifty-five percent to his cousin Frederick Fornoff and fifteen percent each to the three step-daughters. Following Borland's and Butler's deaths, a dispute arose regarding whether Borland's assets should be transferred to the trust, as it was discovered unfunded at the time of his incapacity and subsequent death (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants (Step-daughters): Argued that the district court erred by closing the protective proceeding without deciding whether the conservator, Zia Trust, Inc., must transfer the protected person’s assets to the trust and contended that the district court in the protective proceeding had jurisdiction to decide the petition for instructions after the protected person’s death (paras 1, 7).
• Appellee (Zia Trust, Inc.): Argued for the approval of its final report and accounting, discharge as conservator, and termination of the protective proceeding without deciding on the transfer of assets to the trust, suggesting that the issue be left for the probate court to decide upon the protected person’s death (paras 6, 10-11).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court in the protective proceeding erred by closing the proceeding without deciding the conservator Zia Trust, Inc.'s petition for instructions on whether it must transfer the protected person’s assets to a trust executed by the protected person (para 1).
• Whether the district court sitting in probate should decide upon the protected person’s death the issue of funding the trust (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to close the protective proceeding without deciding the petition for instructions and leaving for the probate court the issue of whether to fund the trust upon the protected person’s death (para 21).

Reasons

• Per WECHSLER, Judge (SUTIN, Judge, and VANZI, Judge, concurring):
  The Court held that the district court in the protective proceeding did not err by not deciding the petition for instructions and leaving the issue of funding the trust for the probate court. This decision was based on the distinct purposes of protective and probate proceedings, with the former focusing on the management of the protected person’s property for their use during their lifetime, and the latter on the distribution of the decedent’s property according to their testamentary intent. The Court reasoned that the issue of funding the trust and the effect of the pour-over will pertained more to Borland’s testamentary intent, making it appropriate for the probate court. The Court also found that the statutory provisions and case law cited by the appellants did not compel the protective proceeding court to decide the issue of funding the trust. Finally, the Court clarified that the district court’s final order did not preclude the appellants from litigating the issue of funding the trust in the probate proceeding, as the order did not address the merits of the trust funding issue (paras 8-20).