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

• Henry Howard Grandi and Kathryn M. Grandi, a married couple, established a trust in 1990, which included real property, water and mineral rights, and personal property. Upon Kathryn's death in 1999, the trust was to be divided into Trust A (Henry's half) and Trust B (Kathryn's half), with Trust A being amendable and revocable, and Trust B irrevocable. Billy Grandi, their son, became co-trustee and sole beneficiary of Trust B, entitled to its benefits only after Henry's death. Despite the trust's terms, all income generated by the trust's assets was used jointly without proper allocation to Trust B. Henry later revoked Trust A, transferring half-interest in the assets to himself, while Trust B remained irrevocable. After Henry's death, Billy filed a complaint claiming entitlement to income and assets improperly withheld from Trust B (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Eddy County, Raymond L. Romero, District Judge, December 3, 2018: The district court found Billy entitled to distribution of half of all real property, water rights, mineral rights, and personal property as per the trust agreement but denied his claim for income earned from oil and gas royalties from Kathryn’s death forward due to laches, dismissing his claim with prejudice (para 6).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (Billy Grandi): Argued entitlement to payment for all income that should have been placed in Trust B from the date of Kathryn’s death and sought judgment against the Estate for all property and income to which Trust B and he as beneficiary were entitled (para 6).
• Defendants-Appellees (Fabiola Grandi and the Estate of Henry Howard Grandi): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court correctly applied the equitable defense of laches to bar the plaintiff's claim against his father’s estate for income and assets improperly withheld from Trust B (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss Billy's claim for income earned from oil and gas royalties from Kathryn’s death forward due to laches, with prejudice (para 22).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, and STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge, concurring):
  The court found that Henry's conduct gave rise to Billy's claim by failing to manage Trust B’s assets and income in compliance with the trust terms (para 9).
  Billy delayed asserting his rights despite having knowledge or notice of Henry’s conduct and an opportunity to institute a suit, which satisfied the second requirement for laches (paras 10-13).
  Henry lacked knowledge or notice that Billy would assert a claim, satisfying the third element for laches (para 14).
  The estate was prejudiced by Billy's delay in bringing his claims due to Henry's absence, satisfying the fourth element for laches (paras 15-17).
  The court disagreed with Billy's arguments that there was no inexcusable neglect in asserting his rights and that the district court's judgment was inconsistent, affirming the application of laches (paras 19-21).