Newcomers to probate litigation are frequently surprised by how differently things work in probate court, as opposed to your more straightforward civil courts. (And how do those newcomers know how civil courts work? Law & Order, I’m guessing.) For example, in civil litigation, a plaintiff will typically pursue claims for him or herself. It is very rare
Regular readers of this blog have already noted my particular enthusiasm for creativity in legal arguments. I am not a judge (Hi Judge Galvin!), but if I were, I would be sorely tempted to pattern my unique brand of judicating after gymnastics judges, who dutifully award points for artistry as well as execution.
And that’s
This blog has previously mentioned the most common question we hear when people find out we work in probate litigation: “What can I do to make sure my family doesn’t fight over my property after I die?” Because I am a Fundamentally Honest Person (FHP for short!), I usually tell them the truth: “Nothing, really.”
For centuries, serious legal scholars have debated what is possibly the most vital question of our times: in what ways, if any, does our judicial system differ from basketball? Now, thanks to the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Haggerty v. Thornton (2024) 15 Cal.5th 729, we finally have an answer.
Longtime readers of
As a child, your parents, teachers, and/or some other adult influence probably sat you down and recounted Aesop’s classic fable, The Tortoise and the Hare. “Slow and steady wins the race,” they told you. The slow, methodical, and thoughtful tortoise would always win out over the fast-paced, impulsive hare.
Well, you’re a grown-up now
I am not an expert on Zen Buddhism. However, even if I had spent decades of my life studying its tenets (instead of, for example, baseball stats from the 1920’s), I would hesitate to call myself an expert because of what would be my resulting adherence to shoshin, the Zen Buddhist concept of
It’s the Halloween season, a time when most of us spend a more-than-reasonable amount of time focusing on the spookier side of things: ghosts, goblins, small children dressed like jack-o-lanterns, suspiciously foggy and cobwebbed mansion estates, etc.
Not me, though. I’m the timid type: I don’t like scary movies, I always turn the lights on
You’ve probably heard that “He who represents himself has a fool for a client,” an adage dating back to the 17th century and commonly attributed to Abraham Lincoln (but not by me – I first heard it on an episode of Frasier). Regardless of its provenance, it’s commonly understood to mean that if
There are a few standard questions I almost always get when people find out that I work in probate litigation. “Do people call you right away when their relatives die?” “Isn’t that tough to deal with, emotionally?” And most frequently, “What can I do to make sure no one challenges my estate plan after I
We’ve been your dogged reporter on the ever-growing logjam in the Courts of Appeal on trust modification procedure. We’ve followed the twists and turns that courts have taken as they’ve tackled the question of what happens when a trust amendment complies with statutory amendment requirements, but fails to follow the trust’s own specified amendment procedure. We’ve zigged with Pena v. Dey, zagged with Haggerty v. Thornton, and zigged right back again with Balistreri v. Balistreri.
The California Supreme Court is poised to provide a definitive answer. It granted review in Haggerty v. Thornton and the case was fully briefed as of July 20, 2022. Hence, it seemed that the Courts of Appeal might sit on any new cases dealing with the issue and await the Supreme Court’s decision.
Spoiler alert: they didn’t.