Why Contingency Fee Representation Is Hard to Obtain in Trust and Will Contests

Risk vs Reward

We often receive inquiries about whether we will represent parties in California trust and will contests on a contingency basis. In contingency representation, the lawyer does not collect a fee unless the client obtains a favorable settlement or court judgment. Contingency fees usually are structured on a percentage basis, with the lawyer receiving perhaps 25-40 percent of the value of the assets collected as specified in the fee agreement.

Generally we decline requests for contingency fee representation, choosing instead to represent contestants who can pay us on an hourly basis. Why do we take this approach? It’s tough, before litigation begins, to evaluate the risk and reward. Continue Reading

Don’t Let Time Run Out on Updating Your Life Insurance Beneficiaries

By Jeffrey S. Galvin on July 2, 2018 Posted in Beneficiaries, Divorce, Probate, San Mateo County Superior Court

Your ex-spouse may take under your life insurance policy if you do not change your beneficiaries and there’s nothing a California probate court can do about it. So ruled the Court of Appeal last month in Estate of Post (2018) ____ Cal.App.5th ____. Continue Reading

Successor Trustee Gets Privileged Documents Even if Trust Says Otherwise

By Jeffrey S. Galvin on June 25, 2018 Posted in Attorney-Client Privilege, Orange County Superior Court, Private Professional Fiduciaries, Trust Administration, Trustee Removal

The attorney-client privilege in California belongs to the office of trustee, not to the incumbent in that office, thus generally allowing successor trustees to obtain confidential communications that their predecessors had with counsel. We blogged last year about an appellate opinion that reinforced this concept.

Last month, in Morgan v. Superior Court (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1026, the Court of Appeal found that a clause in a trust instrument expressly allowing a trustee to withhold attorney-client communications violates public policy and is unenforceable. California estate planning attorneys take note: there is no way to draft around the rule that the attorney-client privilege stays with the office of trustee.

Resolving California Trust and Estate Disputes – A Mediator’s Perspective

By Jeffrey S. Galvin on May 21, 2018 Posted in Conflict Avoidance, Mediation, Will/Trust Contests

Bette Epstein, Esq.

Many California trust and estate disputes are resolved by mediation instead of a final adjudication in the Superior Court. Mediation can offer a custom-crafted resolution to a case that avoids the stress, expense and unpredictability of a trial. When parties choose to mediate, there is often a deal to be found even if the positions seem polarized.

When is the right time to mediate and what are the keys to a successful outcome? I asked lawyer Bette Epstein, who now mediates for ADR Services, to share her thoughts.

Bette grew up in the East Bay. She received a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology from the University of Southern California, a Master’s degree in Counseling from Cal State East Bay, and law degree from USF School of Law. She practiced in the San Francisco Bay Area, working at the law firm of Crosby Heafey Roach and May, which merged with Reed Smith. She is a fellow of the American College of Trusts and Estates Counsel and a co-author of the CEB publication on Capacity and Undue Influence. Continue Reading

Mental Capacity Standards in California Civil Litigation

By Jeffrey S. Galvin on May 14, 2018 Posted in Evidence, Financial Elder Abuse, Mental Capacity, Will/Trust Contests

What mental capacity standards apply in California civil litigation? Last month we presented on this subject at the Placer County Bar Association’s annual spring conference in Roseville. I’ll offer highlights here.

Short answer: it depends. The mental capacity standard varies depending on the setting. The policy rationale for the different standards is elusive, so as our clients present issues we focus on what standard governs instead of pondering why we have a hodgepodge of rules. Continue Reading

Stepmother vs. Stepchild, Now Playing in a California Probate Court Near You

By Jeffrey S. Galvin on April 23, 2018 Posted in Bank Trust Departments, Conflict Avoidance, Conservatorships, Divorce, Private Professional Fiduciaries, Trust Administration

Stepmothers are frequent characters in California trust and estate litigation, as they are in fairy tales and Disney movies. With about half of all marriages ending in divorce, there are many stepmother/stepchild relationships. Mostly they work out fine, but some go south.

After blogging on sibling conflicts as a driver of trust and estate disputes, I offer thoughts today about the litigation I see between stepmothers and stepchildren. In Family Feud parlance, my personal survey says that step-parent relationships are a close second to sibling relationships as the setting of trust and estate litigation. I’ll focus on stepmothers here, though of course stepfathers also often clash with their stepchildren. Continue Reading

Executor Can Swing Away at an Omitted Spouse Petition

By Jeffrey S. Galvin on March 5, 2018 Posted in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Probate

Born in Fresno, Kirk Kerkorian was an Armenian-American who went on to become a wealthy businessman and philanthropist, known for his role in shaping development in Las Vegas. After Kerkorian died in June 2015 at the age of 98, his last wife Una Davis filed a claim for a third of his large estate as an “omitted spouse.”

Early this year, the California Court of Appeal ruled in Estate of Kerkorian (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 709 that Kerkorian’s executor, his longtime business associate Anthony Mandekic, could defend against Davis’ claim, more broadly clarifying when executors can participate in petitions to determine entitlement to decedents’ estates. Continue Reading

New Judge in Sacramento County Superior Court Probate Department

By Jeffrey S. Galvin on January 30, 2018 Posted in Sacramento County Superior Court

This month Judge John P. Winn replaces Judge Steven M. Gevercer as the Supervising Probate Judge in Department 129 of the Sacramento County Superior Court, as part of judicial reassignments that occur each January.

Judge Winn will be handling a broad range of matters in Department 129, including trust disputes, probate administrations, conservatorships and guardianships. Long cause trials typically are sent to downtown trial departments and are not heard in Department 129. Continue Reading

Sacramento Court: Only a Health Care Agent Can Contract for Placement in an RCFE

By Jeffrey S. Galvin on January 2, 2018 Posted in Advance Health Care Directives, Financial Powers of Attorney, Sacramento County Superior Court

Incapacity planning is a major component of an estate plan. Quite often people name one person to serve as a health care agent and another person to serve as a financial agent. What role does one agent have as opposed to the other in the context of contracting for medical services?

While the Probate Code does not provide a bright line, a recently-published California case explores the question in the context of the admission of a patient to a residential care facility for the elderly. The Third District Court of Appeal, in Hutcheson v. Eskaton FountainWood Lodge (2017) ___ Cal.App.5th ___, found that the health care agent was the one authorized to admit the patient and the facility’s failure to obtain consent from that agent nullified an arbitration clause, thus exposing the facility to litigation in Superior Court. Continue Reading

Doctors Who Disobey Health Care Agents in California May Be Liable for Elder Abuse

By Jeffrey S. Galvin on December 4, 2017 Posted in Advance Health Care Directives, Estate Planning, San Bernardino County Superior Court

A recent California appellate case, Stewart v. Superior Court (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 87, validates the primacy of medical powers of attorney and (as they are more currently known) advance health care directives. Medical providers who disregard the instructions of duly-appointed health care agents by providing unauthorized treatment may be liable in California for elder abuse in addition to medical malpractice.

We focus our blog on the financial aspects of California trust and estate disputes. But, as we increasingly become involved in “parent custody” fights and other conflicts over the care of elder and dependent adults, it is important to understand the authority vested in an agent under a health directive. Continue Reading

Welcome to our trust and estate litigation blog. Inheritance disputes are on the rise nationally as the baby boomers age and wealth passes from one generation to the next. This is high stress litigation, often pitting sibling against sibling or second spouse against step-children.

We cover hot button issues in California trust litigation and probate litigation, ranging from the flash points that we see in our cases to recent developments in the field. We discuss trust contests, will contests, and administration disputes. We explore issues of mental capacity, undue influence, fiduciary duty, and financial elder abuse. We follow how California courts grapple with dementia attributed to Alzheimer’s disease, which is becoming more prevalent in our population. We comment on local court practices, including procedures in Department 129 (the probate unit) of Sacramento County Superior Court. We hope that our blog will be of interest to estate planning professionals and to family members immersed in trust and estate disputes. We invite you to follow our blog and to get to know us through our posts.

Trust on Trial