No contest clauses are included in wills and trusts to discourage dissatisfied beneficiaries from challenging the document’s validity. Because enforcement of these clauses results in disinheritance, the California Probate Code limits their applicability. But what happens when a beneficiary defends a trust amendment that is found to be invalid? Can the defense of an
What do you do if someone steals money or property from a trust or estate? California Probate Code section 850 allows you to ask the Superior Court to order the thief to give the money or property back. To discourage such theft, Probate Code section 859 provides that the wrongdoer “shall be liable for twice the value of the property recovered,” and may be liable for legal expenses incurred to recover the property, if you can prove the wrongdoer took the asset in bad faith, through undue influence, or through the commission of financial elder abuse.
Like many California statutes, the “twice the value” language of Probate Code section 859 is not crystal clear. Thankfully, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Conservatorship of Ribal (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 519 recently provided guidance as to how to the calculation works.
Mental capacity issues are commonplace in California trust and probate litigation. Jonathan Canick, Ph.D., who spoke last year at the Sacramento Estate Planning Council on the subject of “Aging, Cognition and Capacity,” graciously offered to share his thoughts with us here.
Dr. Canick has practiced neuropsychology for over 30 years. He is a member of the departments of psychiatry and neuroscience at California Pacific Medical Center, an associate clinical professor, University of California, San Francisco, and a member of the Board of Directors of Legal Assistance for Seniors, an Oakland-based nonprofit. He was a co-author of a research paper entitled “Reversal of Cognitive Decline in Alzheimer’s Disease” that was published in the June 2016 issue of the journal Aging.
Can a disinherited person contest a trust amendment under California Probate Code section 17200? No, said the Court of Appeal last August in Barefoot v. Jennings (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1.
The Barefoot opinion put pending trust contests in jeopardy, as contestants typically have used section 17200 as the procedural hook to challenge trust amendments that disfavored them. Last week, however, the California Supreme Court granted review of Barefoot such that the opinion no longer has precedential value.
What happens when the settlor (i.e., creator) of a trust imposes a condition precedent on receipt of a distribution from the trust, but the condition cannot be met because the circumstances have changed? Is the beneficiary out of luck for reasons beyond his or her control?
The First District Court of Appeal took up this issue in Schwan v. Permann (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 678, finding that the doctrine of impossibility can excuse a condition precedent. While impossibility comes into play infrequently in California trust and estate disputes, the doctrine allows some flexibility in the terms of trusts and wills so as to achieve an equitable result.
We often receive inquiries about whether we will represent parties in California trust and will contests on a contingency basis. In contingency representation, the lawyer does not collect a fee unless the client obtains a favorable settlement or court judgment. Contingency fees usually are structured on a percentage basis, with the lawyer receiving perhaps 25-40
Mental incapacity and undue influence are the most common theories used to try to invalidate wills, trusts and beneficiary designations in California and elsewhere. Occasionally, the subject in a trust and estate dispute has a thorough cognitive evaluation performed contemporaneously with his or her estate planning change. But, more often than not, the medical record is fragmentary.
In a prior post, we discussed the recurring issues that come up in cases involving Alzheimer’s disease. Dr. Charles Schaffer, a Sacramento forensic psychiatrist, recently sent me an article entitled “Protecting the Health and Finances of the Elderly with Early Cognitive Impairment,” published this year in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. The article focuses on mild cognitive impairment and early Alzheimer’s disease. The relatively subtle nature of these two medical conditions makes their impact on estate planning decisions hard to fathom.
California’s Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act is elastic enough to encompass claims arising from sharp insurance sales practices, even when elders do not pay anything directly to the agents. So concluded the First District Court of Appeal earlier this month in Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Insurance Agency, Inc. (2017) 12
Elder financial abuse is all too common in Sacramento County and elsewhere. The abuser, often a family member or caregiver, drains away the resources of an elder or dependent adult who cannot work to replenish them. By the time the theft is discovered, the money may be long gone and the victim may be saddled with debt. What can the victim do?
In a recent post, I commented on how often elder financial abuse cases often go unprosecuted in California, to the chagrin of victims and their families. A week after that post, the California Department of Insurance announced the conviction in Placer County Superior Court of Christine Ann Cooper, who was arrested in Sacramento County and ultimately sentenced to 18 months in jail after embezzling approximately $129,000 from her mother’s trust accounts. According to the Department, Cooper wrote checks to herself from the accounts over a nine-year period and falsified records to conceal her thefts.
Contact with local law enforcement eventually may result in prosecution, but victims and their advocates should take a multi-faceted approach.
(Editor’s Note: The post below was published on November 21, 2016. California law as to undue influence presumptions between spouses changed on January 1, 2020, due to Assembly Bill 327, discussed in a subsequent post.)
When Wife works with her Sacramento estate planning lawyer to favor her Husband over her children from a prior marriage in her trust, does California law presume that Husband exerted undue influence over the Wife to gain a benefit? Until 2014, most California trust and estate lawyers would answer that question in the negative. Favoring a current spouse over other potential beneficiaries is a common and natural choice in estate planning.
Yet a California Court of Appeal based in San Jose took the opposite position in Lintz v. Lintz (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1346. The Lintz case casts a shadow over millions of “honey I love you” wills and trusts in the Golden State. Until the California Legislature or Supreme Court resolves this question, step-children will invoke Lintz in an effort to gain the upper hand over step-parents. This post will discuss the inconsistency that Lintz recently has created in California law.