Another day, another decision by the California Court of Appeal making it more difficult for residential care facilities for the elderly (“RCFEs”) to enforce their arbitration agreements.
Upon admission to virtually any RCFE, a new resident will be asked to sign a stack of documents including an agreement to submit any future dispute to arbitration.
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
The probate unit of the Sacramento County Superior Court (Department 129) will have a new judge in February 2021. Judge Joginder Dhillon will become the probate judge, replacing Judge Kevin R. Culhane who has served in that role since January 2020.
We started Trust on Trial with a post on undue influence in November 2015 and now mark the blog’s fifth anniversary. We thank readers of our “five cents” for their feedback, reflect on where we’ve been, and look towards the future.
Focused on California trust and estate litigation, and dispute avoidance, we have published 127
Judge Kevin R. Culhane rotated into Sacramento County Superior Court’s probate department in January 2020. He shared his initial impressions with members of the probate bar on February 18, 2020, at the monthly lunch of the Sacramento County Bar Association’s Probate and Estate Planning Law Section.
Noting that probate filings are on the rise, he likened the business of the Court’s probate unit (Department 129) to trying to fit ten gallons of water into a five-gallon bucket.
The probate unit of the Sacramento County Superior Court (Department 129) will have a new judge in January 2020. Judge Kevin R. Culhane will be the probate judge, replacing Judge John P. Winn who has served in that role since January 2018.
A key feature of a California revocable trust is that it can be amended. Revising a trust can, however, seem like an irksome chore so it’s common for creators of trusts (i.e., “settlors” or “trustors”) to shrug off an amendment until it becomes clear they have limited time to settle their affairs.
Such procrastination invites mistakes, including failure to comply with a trust’s built-in procedure for amendments. Indeed, while many trust instruments do not specifically prescribe how they may be amended, others do – often requiring “delivery” of the amendment to the trustees or settlors, that the amendment be signed, or both.
What happens when a settlor does not fully comply with the trust instrument’s modification procedure, even though it’s achingly obvious that he intended to amend his trust? Should a court rigidly bind him to the modification procedure or should it follow what seem to be his dying wishes? The California Court of Appeal faced this conundrum recently in Pena v. Dey (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 546. The court required strict compliance with the trust’s modification procedure, rejecting a Post-it® note as satisfying a signature requirement.
Seniors are vulnerable to financial elder abuse and are often victimized, but there’s a scarcity of government resources in Sacramento County and elsewhere in California to address the problem.
On May 21, 2019, the Sacramento County Bar Association’s Probate and Estate Planning Law Section presented a program entitled “Helping the Helpless: How You Can Help Adult Protective Services and District Attorney Protect Vulnerable Sacramentans.” The speakers were Debra Larson and Irene Chu, managers with Sacramento County Adult Protective Services, and Frederick Gotha, Deputy District Attorney who heads the Sacramento DA’s Elder Abuse Unit.
Their presentations indicated that our community would benefit if local authorities had greater staffing to combat the rising tide of financial elder abuse.
A conservatorship, once ordered by a Superior Court judge in California, deprives a person of the right to control his or her financial affairs or person, or both. When the judge appoints counsel for the proposed conservatee, what is the lawyer’s role? Are the lawyer’s ordinary duties of loyalty and confidentiality diminished in the conservatorship setting? Should they be?
These are vexing questions that have led to varying approaches in California’s 58 counties. We sometimes represent siblings in contested conservatorship proceedings, typically in “parent custody” disputes when siblings are vying for control over Mom and/or Dad. The approach taken by court appointed counsel is an important factor in how these cases move forward and it would be helpful to all concerned to have a more uniform approach.
This month Judge John P. Winn replaces Judge Steven M. Gevercer as the Supervising Probate Judge in Department 129 of the Sacramento County Superior Court, as part of judicial reassignments that occur each January.
Judge Winn will be handling a broad range of matters in Department 129, including trust disputes, probate administrations, conservatorships and guardianships. Long cause trials typically are sent to downtown trial departments and are not heard in Department 129.