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

• The case involves a dispute over the ownership of certain tangible property—jewelry, furniture, and paintings (the heirlooms)—following the deaths of John “Jack” E. La Bree (Father) in 2014, Michelle La Bree (Mother) in November 2020, and their only child, Craig J. La Bree (Son), unexpectedly in May 2020. Son was married to Rita M. La Bree, the Appellee and personal representative of his estate, at the time of his death. Deann Reed, the Appellant and personal representative of Mother’s estate, contested the ownership of the heirlooms, claiming they belonged to Mother’s estate. The district court ruled that the heirlooms were part of Son’s estate, as they were given to him jointly by both Parents (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Deann Reed, Personal Representative of the Estate of Michelle La Bree): Argued that the estate of Michelle La Bree had a claim to, interest in, or ownership of the tangible personal property, including the heirlooms, that once belonged to Mother or Father.
• Appellee (Rita M. La Bree, Personal Representative of the Estate of Craig J. La Bree): Contended that the heirlooms and any other tangible personal property once owned by Mother or Father were rightfully part of Son’s estate, as they were given to Son jointly by both Parents.

Legal Issues

• Whether the heirlooms and other tangible personal property once owned by Mother or Father were rightfully part of Son’s estate.

Disposition

• The district court’s order concluding that the Appellant and the estate of Mother had no claim to, interest in, or ownership of any tangible personal property, including the heirlooms, that once belonged to Mother or Father, was affirmed (para 11).

Reasons

• BACA, Judge, with KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge, and JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge, concurring:
  The district court made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, with seventeen findings specifically related to the gift of all tangible personal property by Parents to Son, and nine conclusions specifically related to the gift and its legal validity. These findings and conclusions supported the decision that the heirlooms belonged to Son at the time of his death and were therefore part of his estate (para 3).
  The Appellant challenged only the district court’s findings and legal conclusions concerning whether the heirlooms were Mother’s separate property or community property owned by both Parents. However, these challenges were deemed insufficient to overturn the district court’s decision since the Appellant failed to challenge the findings of fact concerning the gift, which were essential to support the district court’s decision (para 4).
  The district court’s unchallenged findings related to the gift demonstrated that both Parents together gave all of their personal property to Son just prior to entering into an assisted living facility, making the gift a joint gift from both Father and Mother to Son. The related conclusions of law confirmed the validity of this gift (paras 8-9).
  The court concluded that the Appellant waived any challenge to the district court’s findings of fact specifically related to the gift by not directly attacking them, thereby deeming those findings conclusively established (para 7).
  The court affirmed the district court’s order based on the sufficient basis provided by the findings and conclusions concerning the gift, concluding that Appellant and the estate of Mother had no claim to, interest in, or ownership of any tangible personal property that once belonged to Parents, separately or together as community property (para 10).