Intentional interference with expected inheritance (IIEI) was recognized as a legal claim in California about eight years ago in Beckwith v. Dahl (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1039. Last week, the Court of Appeal issued the first published opinion in California that affirms a judgment in favor of a plaintiff on an IIEI claim, thus providing
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
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
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.
California trust and estate disputes often involve allegations that a surviving spouse took advantage of a deceased spouse so as to get more of the latter’s assets. Often the “spousal financial abuse” charges are leveled by the deceased spouse’s biological children against their step-parent, as discussed in a prior post. Sometimes care custodians who
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.
As our population ages, more of our seniors are moving into assisted living facilities. The number of such facilities has nearly tripled over the past two decades, with construction of memory care units the fastest-growing segment of senior care. Half of assisted living residents are age 85 and older, and over 40 percent have some form of dementia.
In “How Not to Grow Old in America,” an article by Geeta Anand in the New York Times last year, the author discusses caring for her parents, notes the above trends, and argues that if assisted living “is to be a long-term solution for seniors who need substantial care, then it needs serious reform, including requirements for higher staffing levels and substantial training.” She cites examples of deaths and injuries that have befallen seniors at assisted living facilities in California and elsewhere.
While Ms. Anand’s focus is on the physical care of seniors in assisted living, the transition from a home environment to an assisted living environment also can lead to serious financial elder abuse.
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.
(Editor’s Note: The Court of Appeal granted rehearing on December 2, 2019 and later depublished the portion of its opinion discussed below such that it is no longer citable authority in California courts.)
It is widely understood in California that inherited assets, unlike assets earned from labor, are the separate property of the receiving spouse. But what if the assets do not come directly from a parent and instead pass from one sibling to another?
Inheritance for separate property purposes generally means direct inheritance, says the California Court of Appeal. That’s the lesson of In re Marriage of Deluca (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 598.