Meet Edward Nowakoski. Once a practicing attorney and trustee, he is now disbarred, on criminal probation, and has paid more than $542,000 in restitution. The final cherry on top? An additional $399,681 civil penalty from the probate court.
That final penalty is the focus of the California Court of Appeal’s partially published opinion in Moramarco
No contest clauses are an ever-evolving area of the probate law in California. The Court of Appeal further refined the rules governing no contest clauses in a decision issued last week, Aviles v. Swearingen (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 485. In brief, in order for a no contest clause to apply to a trust amendment, the no contest clause must be stated in the amendment or the amendment must expressly reference the no contest clause set forth in a prior document.
The takeaway from the case for estate planners is that if your client wants a no contest clause, then you must mention the no contest clause in every trust amendment that you draft for the client. It is not good enough to simply include a no contest clause in the client’s trust and then refer back to that trust, generally, in later amendments. Each subsequent amendment must either contain its own no contest clause or must expressly reference the no contest clause of the original trust instrument.
Although much wealth passes today through trusts and beneficiary designations, we occasionally handle California probate disputes that turn on the validity of wills, sometimes involving high value estates.
The standard practice in California estate planning is for wills to be typewritten and prepared by attorneys, but those steps are not necessary. A holographic, i.e., handwritten, will can have just the same effect.
One of the most dramatic areas of California trust and estate litigation is no contest clauses. No contest clauses bring a made-for-tv excitement to the practice of trust and estate law because of the risk of disinheritance. Yet such clauses are widely misunderstood, even among attorneys.
While financial elder abuse is a serious problem in California, not just anyone can sue to protect an abused elder. This is especially true if the elder does not want to bring suit in the first place. On April 19, 2017, the California Court of Appeal reinforced an important issue related to standing to bring financial elder abuse claims in the case of Tepper v. Wilkins (2017) __ Cal.App.5th __. While an elder is still alive, only the elder or a qualified “personal representative” has standing to file suit for financial elder abuse.
In our Sacramento trust and estate litigation practice there are several questions that come up over and over again. In many instances, these questions are the building blocks of our practice that lead to more complicated questions that sometimes require the filing of a lawsuit to answer. As a starting place, below are some of the more common questions we receive from trustees and from beneficiaries.
Beneficiaries beware: don’t dive in to trust litigation too quickly. That lesson was learned the hard way, ironically, by a diving heiress in Williamson v. Brooks (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1294. The California Court of Appeal decision, which related to a trust created by the founder of Kirby Morgan Dive Systems, Inc., addresses the question of how much information a trustee must give to a beneficiary, and what consequences may (or may not) befall a noncompliant trustee.
Next time you schedule an appointment with Downey Brand’s Sacramento office to revise your estate plan you will have a new question to consider: who will manage your Facebook account when you’re gone?
Assembly Bill No. 691, which became effective on January 1, 2017, attempts to aid in that process. It is commonly called the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (the “Act”), and it establishes a scheme for designating who is entitled to access your online accounts (and what portions of those accounts) after your death. The Act has been added to the California Probate Code at sections 870 to 884.
Acting as a trustee can be a thankless and time consuming job, especially when the reward at the end is nothing more than second-guessing from trust beneficiaries. In our Sacramento-based trust and estate practice, we represent trustees who have strained relationships with beneficiaries, whether their siblings, step-relatives, or otherwise. One useful tool to help trustees manage those relationships is the Notice of Proposed Action.
The notice procedure allows a trustee to obtain immunity from breach of trust claims without (1) obtaining an order from a California probate court, or (2) waiting three years for the statute of limitations on breach of trust claims to run.
As a trust litigation attorney in Sacramento, I seldom see overlap between bare knuckle political campaigns and family inheritance disputes. So, on the eve of a big election, it seems fitting to report on a new case that bridges political and family conflicts.