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

• Keith Bell was listed as a plaintiff in a 2009 settlement agreement (Bell Settlement Agreement, BSA) due to his status as a beneficiary of the Bell Brothers Trust (BBT). The BSA allowed for payments at the discretion of the Bell Plaintiffs, which included Keith, his parents (Gene and Norma Bell), and his sister (Melanie Bell Lorant). Gene and Norma sued Keith, seeking a declaratory judgment that he was not entitled to any BSA proceeds. Keith countered, claiming a right to a portion of the proceeds based on his beneficiary status in the BBT (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants-Appellees (Gene and Norma Bell, Melanie Bell Lorant, GP GBNB Management Holdings, LLC, and GBNB Management Holdings, LP): Argued that Keith is not entitled to any of the BSA proceeds and that all proceeds should go to Gene.
• Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff-Appellant (Keith Bell): Claimed entitlement to a portion of the BSA proceeds based on his status as a beneficiary of the BBT and contended that the proceeds should be divided equally among him, Melanie, and Gene (paras 4, 7-9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's judgment that Keith Bell has no right to receive settlement proceeds from the BSA is supported by substantial evidence.
• Whether the agreement between the Bell Plaintiffs giving all BSA proceeds to Gene violates the statute of frauds.
• Whether the district court's findings regarding the agreement to allocate BSA proceeds are precluded by the parol evidence rule (paras 1, 5, 11, 13).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment that Keith Bell has no right to receive settlement proceeds from the BSA (para 19).

Reasons

• RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge concurring):
  The court found substantial evidence supporting the district court's judgment, including testimonies from Gene, Melanie, and the family lawyer, Gregory Jones, indicating an agreement that all BSA proceeds should go to Gene. Keith's testimony about a supposed three-way division of proceeds was not sufficient to overturn the district court's findings (paras 6-10).
  The court rejected Keith's statute of frauds argument, explaining that the oral agreement to give all BSA proceeds to Gene, accomplished within one year through the creation of GBNB entities, did not violate the statute because it was separate from the BSA and was completed within one year (para 12).
  The court also dismissed Keith's parol evidence argument, noting that he failed to object to the admission of testimony regarding the agreement during the trial. Moreover, the court reasoned that the agreement was separate from the BSA and did not contradict its terms, thus not violating the parol evidence rule (paras 13-18).