Newcomers to probate litigation are frequently surprised by how differently things work in probate court, as opposed to your more straightforward civil courts. (And how do those newcomers know how civil courts work? Law & Order, I’m guessing.) For example, in civil litigation, a plaintiff will typically pursue claims for him or herself. It is very rare
Exactly where a court’s jurisdiction begins and ends is a question that has long irked our judicial system. One muddle is the extent to which federal courts, as opposed to state courts, can decide disputes involving a decedent’s estate.
The probate exception to federal jurisdiction reserves to state courts the probate or annulment of a will and the administration of a decedent’s estate. The exception also precludes federal courts from disposing of property in a state probate court’s custody. While outwardly straightforward, the exception continues to perplex judges.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took up the probate exception in Silk v. Bond, 65 F.4th 445 (9th Cir. 2023), a case involving a wealth advisor who sought to collect his fee. Spoiler alert: the probate exception may be narrower than you think.
This blog has devoted a lot of real estate to the use of anti-SLAPP motions in California trust and estate litigation. Though the courts’ treatment of such motions is varied and oftentimes unpredictable, Californians can generally rely on the anti-SLAPP statute to strike any meritless cause of action that seeks to hold them liable for engaging in constitutionally protected activity. Traditionally, this has meant absolute protection for the pursuit of litigation, and specifically for funding litigation.
But for trustees, the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Starr v. Ashbrook (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 999 means that such protection may not be quite so absolute after all. It turns out that there is a fine line between “engaging in constitutionally protected activity” and “wasting and mismanaging trust assets.”
[Editor’s Note: This post was revised on January 11, 2023 after the implementing Judicial Council forms became available.]
California trust and estate disputes often include claims that one or more family members have isolated or are isolating an elder for financial gain. For example, Brother may have difficulty communicating with Mother and blame Sister for
When an administrator (or executor) of a California estate is named in a judgment, the attorney drafting the judgment must be careful. A person who acts in a representative capacity should be identified that way in the judgment – otherwise, the attorney may have to pursue a costly fix.
A recent probate case from San
Trustee removal petitions, like Centennial Fountains, are one of the more common fireworks in California trust litigation. We’ve explored how such petitions are litigated in prior post and a podcast.
In Bruno v. Hopkins (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 801, the California Court of Appeal broke new ground by finding that a beneficiary who
Narcotics Anonymous established a revocable trust to manage its literature and other intellectual property assets for the benefit of its many members. A “regional delegate group” filed a petition in Los Angeles probate court claiming that the trustee was breaching its fiduciary duties.
The California Court of Appeal, in Autonomous Region of Narcotics Anonymous v.
Assembly Bill 1194, approved by Governor Newsom on September 30, 2021, tightens oversight of California conservators, especially those licensed by the Professional Fiduciaries Bureau.
The bill expands the duties of California courts with respect to conservatorships, though some reforms depend upon funding in future legislation. With a projected budget surplus, and keen public
We’ve written about how co-trustee conflict fuels California trust litigation and the problem seems to be growing. Trust administration grinds to a halt because a co-trustee (or two or three) is hostile, stubborn, self-serving and/or apathetic. While trusts are supposed to provide a streamlined alternative to a court-supervised probate proceeding, the efficiency may be is
Section 2030 of California’s Family Code provides an important safeguard to ensure the fairness of marriage dissolution proceedings. It allows the Court to order a more financially well-off party to pay some or all of the other party’s attorney fees, beginning as early as the start of the proceedings. Section 2030 was enacted to put