Plaintiffs who sue for financial elder abuse run the risk that defendants will spend ill-gotten gains before they can be recovered. To address this problem, the California Legislature gave plaintiffs the opportunity to “attach” or freeze assets at the outset of a case.
The Court of Appeal, in Royals v. Lu (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 328
A recent decision from the California Court of Appeal shows a continued split of authority as to the meaning of California Probate Code section 859, which allows doubles damages for the wrongful taking of property under specified circumstances.
In Keading v. Keading (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1115, the Court of Appeal ruled that a
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.
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.
What happens when the settlor (i.e., creator) of a trust imposes a condition precedent on receipt of a distribution from the trust, but the condition cannot be met because the circumstances have changed? Is the beneficiary out of luck for reasons beyond his or her control?
The First District Court of Appeal took up this issue in Schwan v. Permann (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 678, finding that the doctrine of impossibility can excuse a condition precedent. While impossibility comes into play infrequently in California trust and estate disputes, the doctrine allows some flexibility in the terms of trusts and wills so as to achieve an equitable result.