In the Matter of the Evan O. Koller Revocable Living Trust (Koller v Shaffer and Prounis)

Shaffer and Prounis appealed summary judgment to Koller ruling Koller is the trustee of the trust. The panel, with one judge concurring in part and result in part, affirmed. The majority, with Orme concurring in result, held the district court correctly refused to admit parole evidence here because the document at issue was a written resignation not a contract, integration and consideration were thus irrelevant, the resignation was unambiguous and Shaffer and Prounis pointed to nothing but their subjective opinion that latent ambiguity exists.  The panel held the resignation was delivered as Shaffer executed it, delivered it to a bank as directed by Evan Koller’s conservators and the document was forwarded to the conservators and this was sufficient under the trust. It finally held that whether Shaffer had actually accepted her appointment before resigning was legally irrelevant and there was no dispute Keller accepted his appointment.

In the Matter of Evan O. Koller (Prounis v Koller)

Prounis appealed the denial of her motion for compensation for serving as conservator and guardian for Even Koller. The panel affirmed. It held Prounis did not preserve her argument that evidentiary hearing should have been held on her motion as she did not request one. It affirmed the denial of her motion on equitable estoppel grounds holding Prounis repeatedly told the district court that she should serve without compensation, her siblings (including Koller) did not make complaints about Prounis’ actions while Evan was alive and the district court could reasonably infer this was because of the statements about serving without compensation, and granting the motion would reduce the other siblings share of the estate and thus would injure them. It held the fact the probate code requires compensation for conservators and guardians did not change the outcome because of the estoppel proven by Koller and her claim that her brother received compensation while she did not was discriminatory was inadequately briefed as she failed to articulate any ground to reverse.

State v Smith

Smith appealed his sentences for damage and attempted damage to jail property. The panel vacated and remanded. It held that Smith’s waiver of counsel at sentencing was not knowing and intelligent as he did not engage in colloquy with the district court and the record is insufficient to conclude Smith understood the risks of self-representation at the sentencing or understood the value of counsel at sentencing.