01-3056 Glaeske v. Shaw

Listen to this article

Elwyn Shaw appeals a judgment upholding the validity of a trust. He claims the trial court erred when it: (1) dismissed his claim that William Shaw unduly influenced Elwyn’s father, Arthur Shaw, to designate William as the primary beneficiary of the irrevocable trust; (2) denied his motion to invalidate the trust for improper execution; (3) struck his expert witnesses; (4) refused to join Elwyn’s son, Nate, as a party to the lawsuit; and (5) stated that “it appears … that there is going to be some imposition of sanctions.”

We conclude that Elwyn has pointed to no disputes of material fact or errors of law that would preclude the entry of summary judgment against him on the undue influence claim. We further conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Elwyn’s motion to invalidate the trust for improper execution, striking his expert witnesses, and refusing to join his son as a party to the lawsuit.

Finally, we conclude that the trial court made no final order regarding frivolousness sanctions, and we remand for further proceedings on the issue.

Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Columbia County, Rehm, J., Deininger, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Frank P. Murphy, Naples, FL; Gary M. May, Madison; Elwyn Shaw, Houston, TX

For Respondent: Harold N. Hume Jr., Fort Myers, FL; David R. Carlson, Portage; Anthony R. Varda, Madison