Will/Trust Contests

Subscribe to Will/Trust Contests via RSS

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.

Mental Health DoctorAs 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 February I wrote on this issue, discussing my recent experience in the probate department of San Joaquin County Superior Court.

An article entitled “Assessing Undue Influence,” in the September 2016 issue of The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, takes up the subject. Written by two psychiatrists, Daniel A. Plotkin and James E. Spar, and an attorney who litigates trust/estate disputes, Howard L. Horwitz, the article seeks to sharpen the focus for mental health professionals who take the witness stand in undue influence cases in the context of testamentary instruments, such as wills and trusts.

Boot Camp_RevisedThe 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 of approximately 80 attendees, ranging from law students to experienced lawyers.

I presented on will and trust contests in California Superior Court and provide highlights from my talk below.

Hand in the Money Jar

“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 invalidation of John Patton’s will and trust, which purportedly left Patton’s $5 million estate to LeBouef.  The ruling illustrates the Probate Code’s prohibition of donative transfers to categories of persons who, because of their relationship with the creator of a trust, might exercise undue influence. The law, in particular, presumes that an attorney who drafts a trust in which the attorney is named as a beneficiary does so without the client’s knowledge and consent. The opinion also shows how contestants can use evidence of other “bad acts” to bolster their cases if those other acts show a common plan or scheme.

Anti SLAPPIn 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 Bob may file a petition to enforce the no contest clause in the trust against Sally and thus seek to intimidate her.

Yet retaliatory claims can be radioactive for those who assert them given California’s “anti-SLAPP” statute, codified at Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. “SLAPP” is an acronym for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” The statute creates a “special motion to strike” frivolous claims that aim to chill the valid exercise of speech and petition rights. A petitioner faced with an anti-SLAPP motion quickly finds himself on the hot seat. If he lacks evidence to substantiate his claims, the court will dismiss them and require him to pay his opponent’s legal expenses.

Siblings arguingMost 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 an assisted living facility. They fight over who will manage Mom’s finances and interact with her doctors.

California courts have the tools to resolve these disputes, but struggle to evaluate competing claims of siblings and have a limited attention span to parse through them. Very often, when siblings cannot find middle ground, Mom’s care and finances will end up in the hands of a third party conservator and trustee, after many thousands of dollars in legal fees.

CrownPrince 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 or trust) provides an occasion to muse on the “Controversy” that can erupt in California courts when a person of even moderate means lacks an estate plan, while recalling several song titles along the way.

Alzheimer's Word Cloud_RevisedFor a richly-detailed profile of a woman’s experience with Alzheimer’s disease, read “Fraying at the Edges,” an article by N. R. Kleinfield that appeared on May 1, 2016 in the New York Times. The author follows Geri Taylor, who was first diagnosed with Mild Cognitive Impairment in 2012 at age 69, and introduces us to her husband and other family members, friends, and participants in support groups.

Although the article does not discuss any conflict over Ms. Taylor’s finances or estate plan, the vivid descriptions of her experience with Alzheimer’s disease illuminate the complexity of its effects on mental function. When an elder with Alzheimer’s disease makes a controversial estate planning change, the variable impact of the disease leads to challenges in assessing the elder’s mental capacity and vulnerability to undue influence, and thus substantial uncertainty in the outcome of a trust contest, will contest, financial elder abuse claim or contested conservatorship.

IcebergSpotting undue influence is no easy task for estate planning attorneys. When Mom wants to change her trust to favor Sally over Johnny, Mom presumably is making her own choice for her own reasons. But it’s also possible that Sally, behind the scenes, is pushing Mom to make the change.

An estate planner is like a mariner viewing an iceberg. The top 10 percent of an iceberg is visible above the ocean’s surface while the bottom 90 percent is unseen and potentially hazardous. A planning attorney typically interacts with the client for a relatively brief period of time outside of the client’s home, and is unfamiliar with the events that led up to the client’s arrival. So what can the attorney do to look out for undue influence?

Treasure ChestA contest over the validity of a trust or a trust amendment is an expensive undertaking, typically requiring extensive discovery and a lengthy trial. Can a trustee use the trust’s assets as a war chest to fight off the contestant, even when the trustee is a beneficiary of the challenged trust document and thus has…