Photo of Jeffrey S. Galvin

Jeff Galvin is a partner at Downey Brand LLP. He represents clients in trust and estate litigation, and related civil disputes, in the Greater Sacramento area and across Northern California. He is also licensed to practice in Nevada. Many of Jeff’s clients have no prior experience with litigation and he works to identify and pursue the results that matter most to them.

Jeff advises trustees, administrators and executors who find themselves in conflict with beneficiaries. He helps beneficiaries assert their rights in trust and probate estates. He often litigates cases involving claims of breach of fiduciary duty in which a beneficiary seeks to remove and/or surcharge a trustee, administrator or executor. He prosecutes and defends trust contests and will contests, which typically raise issues of mental capacity, undue influence and elder financial abuse. For example, he successfully defended a trust contest in a 25-day trial in Calaveras County and then defended the judgment on appeal. Jeff also has filed conservatorship actions to stop financial elder abuse.

Jeff is a graduate of UCLA School of Law. He is a member of the Executive Committee of the Trusts and Estates Section of the California Lawyers Association and serves as a host on the Section's "Trust Me!" podcast.

(Read more...)

When an administrator (or executor) of a California estate is named in a judgment, the attorney drafting the judgment must be careful.  A person who acts in a representative capacity should be identified that way in the judgment – otherwise, the attorney may have to pursue a costly fix.

A recent probate case from San

Studies and surveys reveal an equity gap in estate planning.  Americans in communities of color are less likely to have plans in place, a troubling disparity given how important estate planning is for all of us.

Advance health care directives allow elders to choose a decision maker and to express preferences as to palliative care

Plaintiffs who sue for financial elder abuse run the risk that defendants will spend ill-gotten gains before they can be recovered.  To address this problem, the California Legislature gave plaintiffs the opportunity to “attach” or freeze assets at the outset of a case.

The Court of Appeal, in Royals v. Lu (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 328

No contest clauses generally are not enforceable against beneficiaries of California trusts when there is “probable cause” to challenge the trust instrument.

Yet the probable cause safe harbor may disappear if the contest is untimely.  That’s the upshot of Meiri v. Shamtoubi (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 606, a Court of Appeal opinion issued last week.

Trustee removal petitions, like Centennial Fountains, are one of the more common fireworks in California trust litigation.  We’ve explored how such petitions are litigated in prior post and a podcast.

In Bruno v. Hopkins (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 801, the California Court of Appeal broke new ground by finding that a beneficiary who

California trust disputes often involve the interests of parents and their minor children.  Sometimes those interests conflict.  When disputes are settled, who looks out for the interests of children under 18 years of age?  Who checks that no child is left behind?

Probate judges, as explained in a prior post, may appoint a guardian

Can a California court stop others from changing an elder’s estate plan?  Yes, in extreme circumstances, suggests a case arising from conflict in a blended family over which side would benefit from an elder’s trust.

In White v. Wear (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 24, the Court of Appeal reviewed the issuance of an elder abuse

California law is surprisingly unclear as to whether the notes of an estate planning attorney are protected from discovery by the attorney work product doctrine.  This can become a big issue in a will or trust contest when the attorney’s files may contain pivotal evidence as to the client’s intent, mental capacity and/or vulnerability to

We wrote last July about a draft California ethics opinion regarding clients who may have diminished mental capacity.

After receiving public comment, the State Bar’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct has now finalized Formal Opinion Number 2021-207, which is close in content to the earlier opinion.

Opinion Number 2021-207 is useful resource