We often see siblings litigate in California over the allocation of tangible personal property held in the family trust. When Mom and Dad have passed, the tug of war may involve jewelry, paintings, photos, firearms, furniture, saddles, vehicles, table settings – and yes, even a bobble head!
My colleague Kim McGhee recently hosted a fun
Financial powers of attorney give the named agent broad control over the principal’s assets and thus are a key component of estate planning. Such powers allow the agent to help if and when the principal becomes incapacitated. A corrupt agent, however, may use powers of attorney as a “license to steal.”
Agents who favor themselves may end up in hot water, accused of breach of fiduciary duty. That’s the lesson of Pool-O’Connor v. Guadarrama (2023) ___ Cal.App.5th ___, a case involving an agent who wrongfully used a joint account to handle his uncle’s money.
It has become more common for trustors to select someone who is not a beneficiary of the trust estate, often a close relative, to serve as trustee. While the “crown” of trusteeship imbues that trustee with tempting powers – including over that mound of “gold” sitting in the trust – it also comes with duties that must be followed. As Uncle Ben cautioned Peter Parker, “With great power comes great responsibility.”
A trustee generally has a duty to remain neutral in a dispute over who is the rightful beneficiary under a trust that involves no attack on the validity or assets of the trust itself. As the courts held in Whittlesey v. Aiello (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1221 and Terry v. Conlan (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1445, this duty means that a trustee cannot spend from a trust to favor one side over another. But does this duty not to meddle in beneficiary clashes apply even when a trustee is not a beneficiary, with nothing to gain?
In a prior post, we explained how this was one of the questions that Whittlesey and Terry left unresolved. Enter Zahnleuter v. Mueller (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1294, an appeal that Downey Brand LLP successfully defended. The Court of Appeal has now held that, yes, the duty to remain neutral applies to all trustees regardless of beneficial interest.
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.”
What pea is in which pod? California probate disputes often involve questions of property ownership. Petitions filed under Probate Code section 850 allow judges to determine whether and to what extent an estate is the true owner of specified property.
Yet how far can Section 850 petitions be stretched? In Parker v. Schwarcz (2022) ___
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
Families often pay straight hourly wages to in home caregivers. But paying $18 an hour to a caregiver for a twelve hour shift may end up costing the family much more. As noted in a prior post, California law classifies in home caregivers as employees and they must be paid in accord with wage
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
The First District Court of Appeal recently joined the widening chasm amongst California appellate courts concerning trust modification procedure. Probate Code section 15402 is seemingly straightforward, consisting of a lone sentence: “Unless the trust instrument provides otherwise, if a trust is revocable by the settlor, the settlor may modify the trust by the procedure for