A common misperception of trusts is that they are legal entities that, like corporations, can hold title to real estate and other property. A new California appellate decision, Boshernitsan v. Bach (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 883, addresses that misunderstanding.
The litigation arose in San Francisco County Superior Court under the local rent control ordinance.
Mark
(Editor’s Note: This post has been updated following the Court of Appeal’s opinion after rehearing on April 5, 2021, and the Supreme Court’s subsequent denial of review or depublication.)
Trust and estate litigators, and mediators, are buzzing over a recent decision from the California Court of Appeal that validates mandatory mediation of trust disputes.
In
One of the first steps before filing a lawsuit is to decide which court has jurisdiction over it and where it is properly venued. It’s a significant choice – not only for strategic reasons, but also because a poor selection may prove fatal to the lawsuit. Such a hefty decision is not always an easy
Providing for your children is one of the primary purposes of estate planning, but what happens to your carefully crafted trust if you had children you did not know about when you created the trust? Or, what if you have children after you create your trust but never get around to amending the trust to
Creators of trusts (also known as settlors or trustors) usually think long and hard about how their property should pass when they die. It’s therefore common for trustors, or their lawyers, to incorporate protective safeguards into their trust instruments to shield trustors from their own whim and indecision, and ensure nobody trifles with their wishes
In California, a trustor (person who creates a trust) can confer a “power of appointment” on trust beneficiaries, empowering them to designate to whom they want to give their shares of the trust. The trustor can require trust beneficiaries to specifically exercise and refer to the power of appointment in any will they create to
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.
Often an aging parent will add an adult child to the parent’s account as a joint holder to assist with asset management or bill payment. However, this may lead to an unintended result in California when the parent dies. The child, as surviving account holder, may get all of the account proceeds even if the parent wanted them shared among a group of beneficiaries.
Provisions of the California Probate Code set ground rules for the treatment of joint accounts, but the statutory language is not crystal clear. In Placencia v. Strazicich (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 730, the Court of Appeal clarified that the intent of the person who established the account is paramount such that the surviving account holder’s presumed right of survivorship can be overcome by just about any sort of admissible evidence, as long as it is clear and convincing. The survivor just may have to share the piggy bank.
Probate Code section 859, our subject in a recent post, packs a punch in California trust litigation. It awards double damages against someone who in bad faith wrongfully takes property from an elder, in bad faith takes property through undue influence, or who takes property through the commission of financial elder abuse.
While the