Many California trust and estate disputes involve the allocation of real estate amongst several beneficiaries. Mom and Dad, may they rest in peace, owned an upscale home in the Fab 40s neighborhood of East Sacramento, a sweet Tahoe vacation home, and a few rental duplexes, but did not specify how these assets were to
The COVID-19 pandemic has idled workers and the coming weeks will bring more news of business closures and bankruptcies. After a decade of sustained growth, we are facing a recession of uncertain depth and duration. The New York Times recently reported that some Americans are turning (or perhaps returning) to “financial therapy” for support.
In
It’s unremarkable that California courts require that notice be given to affected beneficiaries in trust and probate proceedings. After all, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no person will be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. While contingent beneficiaries may not have received an inheritance yet, they may someday and so should know if someone’s trying to tamper with their potential payday. But how far do notice requirements really go? Must notice be given to beneficiaries who likely won’t ever get a nickel?
The California Court of Appeal wrestled with this issue in Roth v. Jelley (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 655, and held that beneficiaries who will only receive an inheritance upon the happening of an event (i.e., contingent beneficiaries) have a property interest in an inheritance and are therefore entitled to notice under constitutional due process requirements.
A primary purpose of estate planning is to determine what a child will inherit (if anything) upon a parent’s death. But what about a gift given during the parent’s life? Is it an advance on the child’s inheritance, like putting it on the child’s tab until the trust is cashed out? Or is the gift in addition to anything the child will get upon the parent’s death? The answer in California depends on the parent’s intent when the gift was made – more specifically, whether the parent wanted it to be an advance. The problem is determining the parent’s intent after death.
California Probate Code section 21135 describes the circumstances under which a lifetime gift will be considered an advancement against a beneficiary’s inheritance. In Sachs v. Sachs (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 59, the Court of Appeal examined Section 21135 and concluded that a parent’s written records of lifetime gifts established them as an advancement against a child’s inheritance. This opinion provides guidance to parents who make gifts and to siblings in conflict over them.
On November 20, 2019, California attorney Jeffrey T. Makoff presented to the Sacramento Estate Planning Council on the topic: “Welcome to the Post-Marriage World: How to Plan for a Generation That Says ‘I Don’t.’”
Jeff started with evidence that marriage rates have declined sharply from the Silent Generation (those born from the mid-1920s to the mid-1940s) to the Millennials (those born from about 1981 to 1996).
California’s elaborate Family Code establishes property rights between married persons, resting on the concept of “community property.” But what happens when unmarried folks start or run businesses together, or make other financial deals, during an intimate relationship? Jeff explored the complexities associated with the legal relationship between partners who are neither married nor registered domestic partners.
When a man dies in California, who gets the proceeds of his life insurance policy? The answer seems obvious: the named beneficiaries in the paperwork received and accepted by the life insurance company.
But what if the man gave the policy away during his lifetime? Can he cancel the gift and redirect the proceeds to others? No, said the California Court of Appeal in Dudek v. Dudek (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 154. Even though the life insurance company may not have recognized the gift, its recipient can recover the policy proceeds from those who received them.
Many California will and trust disputes arise from ambiguity in the document with respect to who is entitled to an asset. Maybe the document was hazy from the start or perhaps circumstances have changed such that the rightful recipient is no longer clear.
Two cases decided in the California Court of Appeal last year illustrate the conflicts that surface over interpreting wills and trusts. In both cases, coincidentally involving 35 percent shares, the appellate courts overruled the trial courts, nicely illustrating the complexities of will and trust interpretation. California Probate Code sections 21101-21118, though obscure, can be pivotal in the analysis.
Are six sibling co-trustees too many cooks in the kitchen? Many California trust disputes arise from disagreements among sibling co-trustees over how to administer Mom and Dad’s trust after the parents have passed. They all have a strong sense of what Mom and Dad wanted, but they don’t agree on what it was. Thus, trust and estate litigators can be described as “sibling lawyers.”
A recent appellate opinion illustrates such co-trustee conflict and shows the unpredictability of our judicial process. In Trolan v. Trolan (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 939, the California Court of Appeal addressed issues of trust interpretation and trustee removal in a situation where five siblings were aligned against the sixth.
When musician Prince Rogers Nelson died at the age of 57 on April 21, 2016, he had no estate plan in place, not even a will. We blogged that “You Don’t Have to Be Rich to Need an Estate Plan.”
As the third anniversary of Prince’s death approaches, his probate estate continues to be administered in Carver County District Court in Minnesota. Judge Kevin Eide issued orders naming Comerica Bank & Trust as Personal Representative (i.e., administrator) of the Estate and identifying Prince’s six siblings and half-siblings as the heirs.
Litigation involving the Estate spilled over into California in December 2018 when Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc. (Prince’s company) and Comerica as Personal Representative filed a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena by a Redding-area law firm, Sidebar Legal, PC. See Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc. v. Boxill, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:18-mc-00211-MCE-KJN.
I’m a sibling lawyer. My career started early, as a middle child, and now continues as a Sacramento-based trust and estate litigation attorney. Most of my clients are grappling with sisters or brothers over the care and finances of aging or deceased parents. In Family Feud parlance, my “survey says” that sibling versus sibling is the top category of matchups in California trust and estate disputes.
Will this happen in your family? What leads siblings to litigate? In many of my cases, cracks in family relationships were evident long before anyone filed papers at the courthouse. But I’ve had many clients tell me they were always close to their siblings and “never saw it coming.”