Traditionally, the creation of a valid will, in California and elsewhere, required strict adherence to certain formalities. Estate law has been tepidly moving away from requiring compliance with those formalities, with a goal of prioritizing the intent of the person creating the will (the “Testator”). Nine states have gone so far as to enact laws
Operators of skilled nursing facilities want their patients to enter into arbitration agreements. While such agreements don’t eliminate the risk of litigation, they at least reduce the expense and exposure associated with potential jury trials.
California appellate courts, however, have taken an ever narrower view of who can sign arbitration agreements on behalf of patients. Just
No contest clauses generally are not enforceable against beneficiaries of California trusts when there is “probable cause” to challenge the trust instrument.
Yet the probable cause safe harbor may disappear if the contest is untimely. That’s the upshot of Meiri v. Shamtoubi (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 606, a Court of Appeal opinion issued last week.
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.
California trust disputes often involve the interests of parents and their minor children. Sometimes those interests conflict. When disputes are settled, who looks out for the interests of children under 18 years of age? Who checks that no child is left behind?
Probate judges, as explained in a prior post, may appoint a guardian
Suing the suer is a common strategy in California civil litigation. A special motion to strike, known as an anti-SLAPP motion, can be a powerful weapon against retaliatory litigation. We have explained the use of such motions in trust and estate disputes. More specifically, we have explored their application to petitions to enforce no contest
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
While Disneyland may be the “Happiest Place on Earth,” a California probate court may be the opposite for a Disney heir, mused the U.S. Court of Appeals in Lund v. Cowan (9th Cir. 2021) 5 F.4th 964. Bradford Lund, a 50 year-old grandson of Walt Disney, sued the probate judge who rejected a settlement
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
What court should hear a dispute over a California trust? I briefed this question last month when a judge questioned if a case should instead be adjudicated in neighboring states. Such jurisdiction issues come up occasionally given the mobility of family members with interests in trusts.
A recent appellate case, Van Buskirk v. Van Buskirk (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 523, shows the “long arm” jurisdictional reach of California courts in trust litigation. California courts may leap, catch and decide disputes even when nonresident parties would prefer to litigate elsewhere.