This case turns on the standard of review: Abuse of Discretion.
Two sides of a family squabble – each side made an offer to buy the family farm from the estate. The two offers were essentially equal. The trial judge picked the offer that was supported by the greater number of family members, but only gave that team 30 days to close, after which time their offer would be negated and the offer of the other side would be accepted.
The party that did not get their way, appealed.
Our firm was hired by the Appellee, the Personal Representative of the Estate, to handle the appeal. [Thank you Ryan Phillips for your confidence in Chalgian and Tripp.]
I argued the case in the Court of Appeals – to the extent you can call what I did “making an argument.” I used about three minutes of my allotted time, noting that this was a “reasonable outcome” and that the standard of review was “abuse of discretion.” Otherwise, I relied upon the excellent brief that my colleague Drummond Black had written.
The panel had no questions.
I suspect their Opinion had already been written.
At times I am surprised by things that make their way to the Court of Appeals. This one surprised me. What was appealable about this trial court’s decision? How would the Appellant argue that this wasn’t “a reasonable and principled outcome”?
I didn’t get it.
Turns out the Court of Appeals didn’t get it either.
In affirming the trial judge, the COA said the Appellant “failed to show any basis for this Court to disrupt the probate court’s decision.”
To my thinking, that is as it should be.
To read In Re Estate of Mata, an unpublished opinion, click here.
374989
I wish I could have gotten you/your firm to handle a WI appeal on a nightmare guardianship where a bully great nephew had gotten Iron County to impose a guardianship on his great uncle solely because he was afraid his widowed great uncle [no children] was going to marry his girlfriend of 9 years and leave his estate to her. I was successful in getting the 94 year old great uncle out of the guardianship of his person and estate and nursing home, but was unable to get damages and legal fees. The trial court was unsympathetic to my client and would not allow my side to get in much evidence. The court ruled that the evidentiary standard was “clear and convincing” – I argued that it was a preponderance of the evidence. We would have met the “clear and convincing” burden of proof had we been allowed to introduce more evidence. We may still initiate a separate lawsuit for Elder Abuse, including false imprisonment, etc.
that’s awesome Paul – great work