patton-buller

Issues of Credibility in Motions for Summary Judgment in Idaho

Thu, 14 Nov 2024 00:24:15 GMT

THE BULLPEN - 2024 ISSUE 3

Issues of Credibility in Motions for Summary Judgment in Idaho

The summary judgment motion is a fundamental juncture in the modern litigation process. Indeed, the summary judgment standard is so often encountered in case law that one can hardly blame themself for passing over its seemingly humdrum recitation while skimming a new judicial opinion. Afterall, the nuance and intrigue lie in how the standard applies to a unique set of facts, not in the standard itself, right? Well, if so, then the Idaho Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kelso v. Applington , 548 P.3d 363 (Idaho 2024) is an outlier.

We recently wrote about Kelso in Issue 2 of The Bullpen because the circumstances in that case illustrate the importance of comprehensive estate planning. However, Kelso deserves a second look, this time from the vantage point of a legal practitioner and in the context of the summary judgment standard.

Practitioners are well-aware of the Idaho Supreme Court’s summary judgment standard: “Summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Summerfield v. St. Luke’s McCall, Ltd. , 169 Idaho 221, 228, 494 P.3d 769, 776 (2021) (quoting I.R.C.P. 56(a)). However, what about when a case turns on the testimony presented by one witness and that witness’ credibility is reasonably in doubt? A similar factual circumstance was presented in Kelso .

As described in the opinion, the ultimate legal dispute was over the ownership of checking account funds following the death of one of the joint owners (“Father”). Father was originally a joint owner with a right of survivorship of a checking account with his wife. After his wife died in 2017, Father’s friend (“Friend”) began helping Father process his monthly bills. In March 2018, Father executed a will leaving his entire estate to his son (“Son”).

In May 2019, Father added Friend on his checking account as a joint owner with the right of survivorship. Sadly, Father died in 2020. Son, as personal representative and sole heir of Father’s estate, sought to have the checking account funds transferred to Father’s estate. Friend declined the request to transfer the funds into the estate and claimed ownership of the account under the right of survivorship. Son then sued Friend to invalidate the gift for lack of donative intent. Friend moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted.

On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court explained that “[t]he central issue in this case is whether [Father] intended for [Friend] to receive the balance of the joint account on his death, or whether she was just added to the account for banking convenience in processing his monthly bills.” Kelso , 548 P.3d at 370. As evidence of Father’s intent, Friend relied on the testimony of a bank employee (“Employee”) who worked with Father to add Friend as a joint owner of Father’s account. Son argued that, although he had no direct evidence of Father’s intent, Friend’s and Employee’s deposition testimony conflicted on several key points, which called into question Employee’s credibility and created genuine issues of material fact that should have precluded summary judgment.

In the context of the summary judgment standard, the Court began by discussing the role of credibility in summary judgment determinations. The Court reviewed its first application of Rule 56 of the Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure in 1960 and reiterated its “long-standing summary judgment principle” that required denial of summary judgment “when there arises any question of credibility of a material witness[.]” Id. at 369–70. Accordingly, the Court explained that summary judgment should be denied “if the record demonstrates that the matter turns on the reasonably challenged credibility of a material witness’s testimony[.]” Id. at 370.

The Court then turned to the facts of the case and discussed three “key points” where Friend’s and Employee’s testimony conflicted. While the three points of divergence were not directly contrary to the direct evidence of Father’s donative intent, the testimony diverged on important circumstances surrounding how Friend was added to the account—including how the signature card that ultimately added Friend to the account was executed. Despite the lack of contrary direct evidence, the Court concluded that the inconsistency between Friend’s and Employee’s testimony on those three important, surrounding issues reasonably put Employee’s credibility as a general matter at issue. Because Employee’s testimony was the only evidence of Father’s donative intent, Employee’s credibility presented a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Friend and remanded for trial.

Kelso illustrates how credibility can become a material issue for trial and preclude summary judgment. Notably, however, the Court undertook great care to emphasize that an issue of credibility precludes summary judgment only when credibility itself becomes a genuine issue of material fact. Inconsistent testimony involving inconsequential details alone falls short of precluding summary judgment. Id. at 373 (“‘[A]ny question of credibility’ should not be construed overbroadly, so that the slightest inconsistency on an inconsequential matter would preclude summary judgment.”). On the other hand, where “an inconsistency of material testimony reasonably calls into question a witness’s ability to perceive, recollect, or honestly present the facts related to material issues in the case, summary judgment should be denied.” Id.

Kelso is a reminder that credibility can play a crucial role at the summary judgment stage, particularly in cases where most, or all, of the material facts stem from a single witness. As such, movants must be cognizant that part of their burden on summary judgment involves showing the absence of a genuine dispute regarding the credibility of material witnesses. Nonmovants, in turn, may in appropriate cases be able to avoid summary adjudication by arguing that a reasonable trier of fact could simply reject the movant’s testimonial evidence on credibility grounds. Kelso , therefore, offers members of both the plaintiff and defense bars insights into litigation strategy at the summary judgment stage.

Ultimately, as the Idaho Supreme Court has long held: “Summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Summerfield , 169 Idaho at 228, 494 P.3d at 776 (quoting I.R.C.P. 56(a)). However, credibility is also a critical consideration. As the Court has also consistently held: “Summary judgment is not proper where the depositions and affidavits raise any question as to the credibility of witnesses.” Kelso , 548 P.3d at 367-68 (quoting J.R. Simplot Co. v. Bosen , 144 Idaho 611, 615, 167 P.3d 748, 752 (2006)). Thus, “[w]here . . . an inconsistency of material testimony reasonably calls into question a witness’s ability to perceive, recollect, or honestly present the facts related to material issues in the case, summary judgment should be denied.” Id. at 373.

Patton & Buller PLLC

805 W. Idaho St., Suite 202

Boise, Idaho 83702

208-510-6353

DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this website, including within this blog, is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While we strive to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the information herein as of the date of issue, we make no guarantees, representations, or warranties of the content or its embedded legal analysis. We note that our blog posts may not be updated to reflect any subsequent changes to the state of the law, including but not limited to changes to statutes and any applicable court decisions subsequently issued. Such subsequent changes could impact any analysis or legal opinions discussed in this or any other blog post. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking legal counsel, and this information is not intended as a substitute for legal counsel. Moreover, the practice of law is factually dependent. Even an accurate legal analysis under the facts discussed herein may not be applicable to the facts of your situation. You should seek legal counsel to fully evaluate your legal matter.

Importantly, the use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and our law firm. By corresponding with Patton & Buller PLLC in anyway, you are not engaging with Patton & Buller PLLC or any of its attorneys. No attorney client relationship will be formed unless both you and the firm execute an engagement letter, detailing the scope of the representation and costs associated with services. As of the date of this issue, Grant Patton and Trevor Buller are licensed to practice law in Idaho and Kentucky.

New Kentucky Virtual Office

Wed, 23 Oct 2024 17:48:06 GMT

EXPANSION Announcement: New Kentucky Virtual Office Location

As many are aware, Patton & Buller PLLC opened its doors on August 5, 2024. Many broken down cardboard boxes and days of furniture assembly later, Trevor and I celebrated the grand opening of our downtown Boise office surrounded by family, friends, mentors, and new clients. It was an exciting milestone in our practice. We have been overwhelmed by, and incredibly grateful for, the outpouring of support for our new business that made the launch of our Idaho practice successful.

Today is another exciting milestone for Patton & Buller PLLC. As a proud son of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, I am happy to announce that we are expanding our practice to the Bluegrass State. Earlier this month, both Trevor and I were sworn into the Kentucky Bar Association and licensed statewide. By leveraging technology, we are excited to have a Kentucky virtual office location, serving Kentuckians across the commonwealth.

Our Kentucky virtual office location is now open. In addition to same-week virtual availability now, Trevor and I will be taking in-person appointments, predominately in the Louisville area, throughout the year. We are booking now for the week after Thanksgiving. Our practice areas include estate planning, real estate, business, and appellate law. For those interested in estate planning services, we will be offering a limited number of same-day estate planning meetings the week of December 2, 2024, aimed at completing your whole estate plan start-to-finish. If you are interested in our legal services, please call us at 502-208-8500 or visit our website at www.pattonbuller.com/contact .

Grant M. Patton

Attorney + Principal

Patton & Buller PLLC

www.pattonbuller.com

502-208-8500

About Patton & Buller PLLC:

Headquartered in Boise, Idaho, Patton & Buller PLLC is a law firm with practice areas in real estate, estate planning, probate administration, business law, and appellate litigation. In addition to serving clients throughout Idaho out of its Boise office, Patton & Buller PLLC serves clients across the Commonwealth of Kentucky through its virtual Kentucky practice. Both Grant M. Patton and Trevor S. Buller are licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the State of Idaho.

About Grant M. Patton:

Raised in Louisville, Kentucky, Grant is a proud husband and father to three incredible children. When not at work, Grant enjoys spending time with his family, watching football, and trying to squeeze in a round of golf. At work, Grant is passionate about his clients and their experience with the firm. He enjoys engaging in outside-of-the-box thinking and searching for innovative solutions to help his client’s goals come to fruition. After graduating from Saint Xavier High School, Grant completed his undergraduate education at the University of Notre Dame and later his Masters of Business Administration at Boise State University. Thereafter, Grant graduated summa cum laude from the University of Idaho College of Law. While in law school, Grant completed an internship with the Idaho Court of Appeals and another with the Hon. B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. Grant also interned at a boutique business law firm, focused on business, real estate, and estate planning matters. After completing law school, Grant clerked for the Hon. Gregory W. Moeller, Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court. Grant leads the Estate Planning, Real Estate, and Business Law practices for the firm. Grant is licensed to practice law in Idaho and Kentucky.

About Trevor S. Buller:

Raised in Meridian, Idaho, Trevor is a devoted partner and father. Whether it is camping, fishing, boating, snowboarding, or simply going for a long bike ride down the Greenbelt, Trevor enjoys any time spent with his family in Idaho’s rich outdoors. Consistent with one of the firm’s core principles, Trevor takes a client-first approach to legal representation. With years of experience in the service industry, Trevor understands that delivering exceptional service to his clients is a top priority during what can often be a challenging time in their lives. He is here to help guide those in need of legal services to a resolution they can look back on with positivity. Trevor completed his undergraduate education at Boise State University, where he graduated cum laude with a degree in Political Science. Trevor went on to receive his juris doctor degree from the University of Idaho College of Law, this time magna cum laude. Trevor worked as an extern for two of Idaho’s exceptional judges while in law school—the Honorable B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho and the Honorable G. Richard Bevan, Chief Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court. Trevor continued this path after law school, completing a two-year clerkship with a third outstanding Idaho judge, Justice Colleen D. Zahn of the Idaho Supreme Court. Trevor leads the Probate Administration and Appellate practices for the firm and also provides legal services in Estate Planning and Business Law. Trevor is licensed to practice law in Idaho and Kentucky.

Bank Accounts and Comprehensive Estate Planning in Idaho

Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:19:13 GMT

The Bullpen - 2024 Issue 2

Bank Accounts and Comprehensive Estate Planning in Idaho

As a general matter, people dislike probate. The dislike is for a variety of reasons, including reasons related to the administrative burdens, attorney fees, time, and the public nature of probate proceedings. A quick internet search by those keen on avoiding probate will return a wide array of techniques and videos advising on how probate can be avoided.

While there are situations when someone would want to plan on probating their estate, there are a variety of ways to avoid needing the probate to clear title to or transfer estate assets. In terms of bank account assets, one of the most common is through non-probate transfers, see I.C. § 15-6-101 et seq. , including through multi-party accounts such as P.O.D. accounts or joint-ownership accounts with the right of survivorship. Id.; I.C. § 15-6-101(10) (2024); I.C. § 15-6-104.

However, while non-probate and other types of transfers that are consistent with a comprehensive estate plan can make the administrative process after the death of a loved one easier, inconsistencies between titling and the estate plan can lead to more difficulties in estate administration. As one recent example in Idaho, the Idaho Supreme Court addressed a joint-checking account in Kelso v. Applington , 548 P.3d 363 (Idaho 2024), where a dispute emerged between the surviving joint owner of a checking account and the beneficiary of a testator’s entire estate.

As described in the opinion, there was a dispute over the ownership of checking account funds (amounting to nearly $140,000) following the death of one of the joint owners (“Father”). Father was originally a joint owner with a right of survivorship of a checking account with his wife. After his wife died in 2017, Father’s friend (“Friend”) began helping Father process his monthly bills. In March 2018, Father executed a will leaving his entire estate to his son (“Son”).

In May 2019, Father added Friend on his checking account as a joint owner with the right of survivorship. Sadly, Father died in 2020. Son became the personal representative and sole heir of Father’s estate. After his father’s death, Son sought to have the nearly $140,000 in the checking account transferred to Father’s estate. Friend declined the request to transfer the funds into the estate and claimed ownership of the account under the right of survivorship. Thereafter, Son brought suit as personal representative of Father’s estate to invalidate the gift under Idaho Code section 15-6-104 for lack of donative intent and other equitable claims. Friend moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment Friend after it found that there was “clear and convincing evidence that [Father] intended Friend to have the funds in his account upon his death[.]” Kelso, 548 P.3d at 367.

While the Idaho Supreme Court ultimately reversed the decision finding a genuine issue of material fact, the facts of Kelso highlight the importance of a comprehensive and holistic estate plan. A comprehensive estate plan must take into account not just the desired outcome but also the non-probate transfers working in conjunction with the estate plan and applicable relevant statutory considerations.

As explained by the Idaho Supreme Court, cases in Idaho like Kelso turn on whether an intent to give the checking account funds can be shown. However, depending on how the checking accounts are set up, results can differ. Suppose a mother originally intends to make a gift to a friend, but decides later to make a change to leave everything to her daughter and does so in her properly executed will. If that mother had properly made the friend the POD on her account, Idaho Code seems to foreclose a later change by will. Idaho Code section 15-6-104 (e) provides “[a] right of survivorship arising from the express terms of the account or under this section, if an intent to give can be shown, a beneficiary designation in a trust account, or a P.O.D. payee designation, cannot be changed by will .” I.C. § 15-6-104 (emphasis added). While someone might take great care to detail specifics of their checking and savings accounts in their will, undesired results can inadvertently occur if not done so in a comprehensive manner.

Estate planning should take into account all of the assets and the desired outcomes. Moreover, any desired changes must be done in a way that is consistent with the estate plan and not contrary to it. For this reason, both estate planning and any subsequent updates should be completed under counsel from a licensed attorney.

Are you looking for comprehensive estate planning? Or are you looking to make updates to the estate plan you have in place? We are here. Call Patton & Buller to begin your comprehensive estate planning today at 208-510-6353 or visit our website at www.pattonbuller.com/contact .

Patton & Buller PLLC

805 W. Idaho St., Suite 202

Boise, Idaho 83702

208-510-6353

Introducing: The Bullpen

Mon, 14 Oct 2024 23:19:19 GMT

The Bullpen

2024 ISSUE 1

Issue 1: October 14, 2024

Hello!

Welcome to The Bullpen , the official blog of Patton & Buller PLLC. We are excited to launch this platform as a space where we can share our insights and updates on the ever-evolving world of law.

Our goal is to demystify relevant legal concepts and illustrate important nuances in the law for the public. Whether you are dealing with a personal legal issue, are curious about the legal process, or are just interested in how the law impacts everyday life, our goal is to make the law more accessible. We will be breaking down complex legal concepts into easy-to-understand articles, best practices, and keeping you informed about the latest legal developments.

The Bullpen is not just for the public; we aim for it to also be a resource for fellow legal professionals. We will also be sharing practice points, case studies, and insights relevant to the legal profession from a practitioner’s perspective.

No matter what brings you to The Bullpen, we hope that you will discover valuable takeaways in our posts. Thank you for joining us on this journey. We look forward to providing you with salient content and fostering a community of informed and empowered individuals.

Stay tuned for our upcoming posts!

Warm regards,

Patton & Buller PLLC

805 W. Idaho St., Suite 202

Boise, Idaho 83702

www.pattonbuller.com

208-510-6353

DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this website, including within this blog, is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While we strive to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the information herein as of the date of issue, we make no guarantees, representations, or warranties of the content or its embedded legal analysis. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking legal counsel, and this information is not intended as a substitute for legal counsel. Moreover, the practice of law is factually dependent. Even an accurate legal analysis under the facts provided herein may not be applicable to the facts of your situation. You should seek legal counsel to fully evaluate your legal matter.

patton-buller

Issues of Credibility in Motions for Summary Judgment in Idaho

THE BULLPEN - 2024 ISSUE 3

Issues of Credibility in Motions for Summary Judgment in Idaho

New Kentucky Virtual Office

EXPANSION Announcement: New Kentucky Virtual Office Location

Bank Accounts and Comprehensive Estate Planning in Idaho

The Bullpen - 2024 Issue 2

Bank Accounts and Comprehensive Estate Planning in Idaho

Introducing: The Bullpen

The Bullpen

2024 ISSUE 1 ﻿

2024 ISSUE 1