Even a court order approving an accounting may not protect a California fiduciary if the accounting is inaccurate. That’s the upshot of Hudson v. Foster (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 640, a recent California Court of Appeal decision involving a conservatorship.
The conservatee in this case consented to the conservator’s account and four years passed before
California trust disputes often involve allegations that trustees should be removed and suspended because they are acting improperly or have conflicts of interest.
Attorney Denise Chambliss, author of an informative article on trustee removal, spoke with me on Trust Me!, the podcast of the Trusts and Estates Section of the California Lawyers Association.
As we enter the New Year, it’s a good time to revisit your estate plan. The big question is whether your will, trust, power of attorney, and advance health care directive accomplish your personal objectives. Guidance from an estate planner will help you review your plan in light of tax and other changes in the
Bank trust departments, also referred to as corporate trustees, provide professional management to the administration of California trusts. People may choose to name a bank to act as successor trustee when they can no longer manage their own assets, either because they don’t have family members they can count on to handle assets or because they don’t want to burden family members with the role. Sometimes family members or a court may appoint a bank to take the place of an acting trustee as a means to resolve disharmony amongst the parties.
Alysia Corell joins us here to share her experiences as a trust officer. Alysia grew up in the Mt. Shasta area of Northern California and traveled south to attend San Diego State University where she majored in communications. She began to work in a bank trust department in 2003 and became a Certified Trust and Financial Advisor in 2008. She is a past president and current member of the Sacramento Estate Planning Council and a member of the South Placer Estate Planning Council. In 2018 Alysia joined the trust department of Exchange Bank.
While California trustees hope for smooth sailing, they must navigate waters that can be choppy depending on the assets, trust instruments and personalities involved. As fiduciaries, trustees must honor the trustors’ intent as expressed in the trust instruments. Sometimes the language is unclear and the trustee needs instruction from a court as to how to proceed.
If they are not already working with an attorney, most trustees will (and should) seek guidance from counsel when uncertain about what to do. An attorney, generally at the expense of the trust, can help the trustee decide whether to file a petition for instructions, draft the necessary paperwork, serve it on parties entitled to notice, and then appear in the probate department of the court on behalf of the trustee. Some DIY-minded trustees, however, may be inclined to proceed without paying an attorney. Business & Professions Code section 6125 provides that a person can’t practice law unless he/she is an active member of the State Bar of California. When can a trustee represent himself or herself in court without engaging in unauthorized practice of law?
Earlier this month, the Court of Appeal held in Donkin v. Donkin, Jr. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 469 that individuals acting as trustees may represent themselves when seeking instructions from a California court. Yet, like an inexperienced sailor who attempts a solo ocean journey, a trustee who proceeds without counsel risks serious missteps such that self-representation may end up being far more costly in the long run.
While institutional trustees may have once slept soundly considering themselves immune from class action lawsuits relating to the purchase or sale of securities on behalf of a trust, the Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling in Banks v. Northern Trust Corp. (9th Cir. 2019) 929 F.3d 1046, sounds a rousing wake up call for every trustee who professionally manages multiple trusts.
Federal law generally prohibits class actions relating to (1) misrepresentations of material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, and (2) the alleged use of any manipulative device in connection with the purchase or sale of a security. Thus, for the most part, cases involving these types of allegations can only be brought individually. While institutional trustees have always had to be careful in what representations they make in the purchase or sale of securities, the potential for massive liability from class action litigation has largely been a non-issue.
However, the court in Banks v. Northern Trust Corp. clarified that this general rule does not apply to claims brought against a trustee by beneficiaries of an irrevocable trust. Therefore, institutional trustees with a large volume of trust administration files, and especially those associated with an institution that provides investment products, should now be on high alert for the potential for class action claims to be brought against them.
In the absence of a trust that allows assets to pass without opening probate, the California probate process lasts for at least six months and can run much longer depending on the size of the estate and the nature of assets. The role of the personal representative (i.e., the “executor” if nominated in the will) is to administer the estate efficiently, resolve creditor claims, and get the assets out to the rightful beneficiaries.
By no means, of course, is the probate process supposed to drag out for two decades. That’s exactly what happened, however, in a case in Riverside County Superior Court. In Estate of Sapp (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 86, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the probate court’s removal of the personal representative, providing guidance as to when a representative may be removed. As the opinion indicates, probate is no time for napping by the personal representative or the beneficiary: the former has a fiduciary duty to get the job done and the latter may need to poke the dozing, inept and/or corrupt representative.
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.