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 agreement … Continue Reading
Fort Hayes State University in Kansas, home of the Tigers, almost lost a $20 million donation because of a forged codicil (amendment) to the will of Earl Field. Earl was a World War II pilot, successful businessperson, and booster of FHSU. He died in 2013 at the age of 98. The forgery was proven only … Continue Reading
When are delusions enough to invalidate an estate plan? The California Court of Appeal addressed that issue earlier this month in Eyford v. Nord (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 112. The case involves a 90-year-old woman who favored a charity and disinherited the two grandchildren with whom she had been close. The appellate court found that California … Continue Reading
Getting a civil or probate case to trial in California can take a long time. The pandemic has backed up many courts given that criminal and civil trials starting in March 2020 were postponed. While most California trust and estate disputes do not require juries, a multi-day court trial remains a challenge in a pandemic … Continue Reading
As we enter the eighth month of the COVID-19 pandemic, California courts and litigants continue to grapple with how to move civil cases forward. Senate Bill 1146, approved by Governor Newsom on September 18, 2020, and effective immediately, facilitates the taking of depositions by allowing court reporters to attend remotely and enables electronic service of … Continue Reading
Last week the California Supreme Court used a conservatorship case to clarify how appellate courts should review the sufficiency of evidence when the trial court applied the clear and convincing evidence standard. In Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, the Supreme Court held that “when reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved … Continue Reading
In California, a trustor (person who creates a trust) can confer a “power of appointment” on trust beneficiaries, empowering them to designate to whom they want to give their shares of the trust. The trustor can require trust beneficiaries to specifically exercise and refer to the power of appointment in any will they create to … Continue Reading
The COVID-19 pandemic has idled workers and the coming weeks will bring more news of business closures and bankruptcies. After a decade of sustained growth, we are facing a recession of uncertain depth and duration. The New York Times recently reported that some Americans are turning (or perhaps returning) to “financial therapy” for support. In … Continue Reading
Last week the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Barefoot v. Jennings (2020) 8 Cal.5th 822, ruling that a trust beneficiary disinherited in an amendment may contest the amendment’s validity in the probate department of the Superior Court under California Probate Code section 17200. The Court of Appeal had narrowly construed section 17200 … Continue Reading
Probate Code section 859, our subject in a recent post, packs a punch in California trust litigation. It awards double damages against someone who in bad faith wrongfully takes property from an elder, in bad faith takes property through undue influence, or who takes property through the commission of financial elder abuse. While the first … Continue Reading
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 invalid … Continue Reading
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 … Continue Reading
Many California trust and estate disputes are resolved by mediation instead of a final adjudication in the Superior Court. Mediation can offer a custom-crafted resolution to a case that avoids the stress, expense and unpredictability of a trial. When parties choose to mediate, there is often a deal to be found even if the positions … Continue Reading
What mental capacity standards apply in California civil litigation? Last month we presented on this subject at the Placer County Bar Association’s annual spring conference in Roseville. I’ll offer highlights here. Short answer: it depends. The mental capacity standard varies depending on the setting. The policy rationale for the different standards is elusive, so as … Continue Reading
California’s anti-SLAPP statute has generated another published case for trust and estate lawyers to ponder. Last week, in Urick v. Urick (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1182, the California Court of Appeal confirmed that anti-SLAPP motions can be used to attack petitions to enforce no contest clauses. The opinion reminds California trust and estate counsel to be … Continue Reading
Although much wealth passes today through trusts and beneficiary designations, we occasionally handle California probate disputes that turn on the validity of wills, sometimes involving high value estates. The standard practice in California estate planning is for wills to be typewritten and prepared by attorneys, but those steps are not necessary. A holographic, i.e., handwritten, … Continue Reading
One of the most dramatic areas of California trust and estate litigation is no contest clauses. No contest clauses bring a made-for-tv excitement to the practice of trust and estate law because of the risk of disinheritance. Yet such clauses are widely misunderstood, even among attorneys.… Continue Reading
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 … Continue Reading
As a trust litigation attorney in Sacramento, I often make or defend against allegations of undue influence in the context of a trust amendment that favors one beneficiary over another. In this setting, what is the proper role of a mental health expert, such as a forensic psychiatrist, with regard to evaluating undue influence? Last … Continue Reading
The Sacramento County Bar Association’s Probate and Estate Planning Section hosted its first ever “boot camp” program on trust and estate litigation on September 20, 2016. As an alternative to the monthly lunch programs, the Section offered a six-hour seminar at its office at 425 University Avenue in Sacramento. The program drew a full house … Continue Reading
“An ethical estate planning attorney will plan for his client, not for himself.” With those words, the California Court of Appeal recently ripped Southern California attorney John LeBouef for taking advantage “of an elderly and mentally infirm person to enrich himself.” In Butler v. LeBouef (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 198, the appellate court affirmed the … Continue Reading
In heated California trust and estate litigation, one party’s petition to the probate court often leads the other side to file a retaliatory petition. If Sally petitions in Sacramento County Superior Court to contest Mom’s trust amendment on the ground that Mom had Alzheimer’s disease and lacked sufficient mental capacity to reduce Sally’s share, brother … Continue Reading
Most California trust and estate disputes are emotionally intense, and none more so than sibling conflicts over the care of an aging parent. Like a child custody fight in the family law context, siblings battle over whether Mom will remain in the home where she lives, move in with one of them, or move to … Continue Reading
Prince died in April 2016 without a will or trust, according to documents recently filed by his sister in the Carver County District Court in Minnesota. Perhaps a will or trust will surface eventually, as occurred with Michael Jackson’s estate. However, the revelation in “The Morning Papers” that Prince died intestate (legalese for no will … Continue Reading
