It’s the Halloween season, a time when most of us spend a more-than-reasonable amount of time focusing on the spookier side of things: ghosts, goblins, small children dressed like jack-o-lanterns, suspiciously foggy and cobwebbed mansion estates, etc.
Not me, though. I’m the timid type: I don’t like scary movies, I always turn the lights on
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.”
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
A common misperception of trusts is that they are legal entities that, like corporations, can hold title to real estate and other property. A new California appellate decision, Boshernitsan v. Bach (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 883, addresses that misunderstanding.
The litigation arose in San Francisco County Superior Court under the local rent control ordinance.
Mark
While California trustees hope for smooth sailing, they must navigate waters that can be choppy depending on the assets, trust instruments and personalities involved. As fiduciaries, trustees must honor the trustors’ intent as expressed in the trust instruments. Sometimes the language is unclear and the trustee needs instruction from a court as to how to proceed.
If they are not already working with an attorney, most trustees will (and should) seek guidance from counsel when uncertain about what to do. An attorney, generally at the expense of the trust, can help the trustee decide whether to file a petition for instructions, draft the necessary paperwork, serve it on parties entitled to notice, and then appear in the probate department of the court on behalf of the trustee. Some DIY-minded trustees, however, may be inclined to proceed without paying an attorney. Business & Professions Code section 6125 provides that a person can’t practice law unless he/she is an active member of the State Bar of California. When can a trustee represent himself or herself in court without engaging in unauthorized practice of law?
Earlier this month, the Court of Appeal held in Donkin v. Donkin, Jr. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 469 that individuals acting as trustees may represent themselves when seeking instructions from a California court. Yet, like an inexperienced sailor who attempts a solo ocean journey, a trustee who proceeds without counsel risks serious missteps such that self-representation may end up being far more costly in the long run.
In California, the Attorney General oversees charitable trusts. This responsibility includes bringing legal actions against trustees who breach their fiduciary duties. Government Code section 12598 provides that the Attorney General is entitled to recover from a defendant all reasonable attorney’s fees and actual costs incurred in an action to enforce a charitable trust. But what happens when the Attorney General is only partially successful in its case against the defending trustee of a charitable trust?
People ex rel. Becerra v. Shine (2020) ____ Cal.App.5th ____ provides the answer. The Government Code does not require a stringent analysis of whether the Attorney General has achieved all of its litigation goals or has been completely successful on every claim. Further, the Attorney General is entitled to attorney’s fees when it has generally accomplished what it set out to do, which in People v. Shine was to prove that Shine had breached his fiduciary duties and to recover funds for the trust.
Tracy M. Potts has nearly three decades of experience in California with estate planning, administration and litigation. A Texas native, she earned her law degree from Southern Methodist University School of Law. Her leadership experience includes chairing the Executive Committee of the State Bar of California, Trusts and Estates Section, as well as the Sacramento County Bar Association, Probate and Estate Planning Section. She is a certified specialist in estate planning, trust, and probate by the State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization. She also is a fellow of the The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel.
Tracy’s law firm, Legacy Law Group, operates from the Natomas area of Sacramento. I sat down with Tracy at her office in February 2020 to discuss estate planning and dispute avoidance.
Can a California trustee require a beneficiary to sign a release in order to get a distribution from a trust? A question like this appeared recently on the AVVO “Free Q&A” page and makes for a perfect blog topic.
Trustees understandably want to wrap up trust administration without having to worry about being sued by beneficiaries. When a beneficiary appears to be litigious, the trustee may want to dangle a preliminary or final asset distribution as a carrot to get the beneficiary to sign a release. Yet, since the trustee is a fiduciary, California law does not give a trustee unfettered discretion to insist on releases. An effort to prevent trust litigation could end up sparking such litigation.
While institutional trustees may have once slept soundly considering themselves immune from class action lawsuits relating to the purchase or sale of securities on behalf of a trust, the Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling in Banks v. Northern Trust Corp. (9th Cir. 2019) 929 F.3d 1046, sounds a rousing wake up call for every trustee who professionally manages multiple trusts.
Federal law generally prohibits class actions relating to (1) misrepresentations of material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, and (2) the alleged use of any manipulative device in connection with the purchase or sale of a security. Thus, for the most part, cases involving these types of allegations can only be brought individually. While institutional trustees have always had to be careful in what representations they make in the purchase or sale of securities, the potential for massive liability from class action litigation has largely been a non-issue.
However, the court in Banks v. Northern Trust Corp. clarified that this general rule does not apply to claims brought against a trustee by beneficiaries of an irrevocable trust. Therefore, institutional trustees with a large volume of trust administration files, and especially those associated with an institution that provides investment products, should now be on high alert for the potential for class action claims to be brought against them.
This blog post views a trustee’s fee from the beneficiary’s perspective. Under California law, a trustee generally can set his or her own fee and collect it without prior disclosure to the beneficiaries. What can a beneficiary, who sees a hand reaching too greedily in the trust cookie jar, do in response?
We discussed best practices for a trustee when claiming a fee in a prior post and now consider how a beneficiary can monitor, evaluate and object to a trustee’s fee.