Will/Trust Contests

Subscribe to Will/Trust Contests via RSS

Opening Curtains_EditThe attorney-client privilege, a bedrock principle of our legal system, protects confidential communications between clients and their attorneys, and the lawyer’s duty to preserve client confidences generally continues after the death of the client. Under the California Business and Professions Code, lawyers must “maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client.”

To what extent does the attorney-client privilege apply when there is a trust contest, will contest, or a fight over the interpretation of estate planning documents? Usually, the attorney who drafted the questioned document(s) is a central witness, for example, as to mental capacity or undue influence. Estate planners are often unfamiliar with the rules that apply when their work product is subject to litigation.

Mental Health ConceptAt the start of trial recently in San Joaquin County Superior Court in Stockton, I sparred with opposing counsel over the role of the retained mental health experts with regard to testimony on undue influence. The contestant alleged that her brother unduly influenced their parents to disfavor her when they amended their trust. Sister retained a neuropsychologist to testify at trial on the subject of undue influence and Brother retained a forensic psychiatrist. Not surprisingly, the experts took divergent views on the case.

The question, which came before the judge in a motion in limine (i.e., pre-trial motion), was whether the retained experts should be allowed to testify on the ultimate issue of whether Mom and Dad were unduly influenced. Sister wanted her expert to be able to opine that her parents were victimized based on the expert’s review of the medical records and deposition transcripts. The judge agreed with Brother’s argument that, while the experts could testify on the issue of Mom and Dad’s vulnerability to undue influence, expert testimony on the issue of whether undue influence actually occurred would be excluded and that matter instead would be left for the judge to decide after hearing all the evidence.

Woman reading bookOn a road trip over the holidays, I listened to John Grisham’s Sycamore Row, as artfully read by Michael Beck. Published in 2013, it’s a sequel to Grisham’s first novel, A Time to Kill, and again features young country lawyer Jake Brigance. This time, instead of an accused man, he’s defending the handwritten will of Seth Hubbard. Hubbard, a shrewd businessman, had a terminal illness and near the end of his life wrote a new will to favor his housekeeper over this two children.

Are will contests in California like the contest featured in John Grisham’s legal thriller? Yes and no.

Department 129 SignThis month Judge Steven M. Gevercer will replace Judge David F. De Alba as the probate judge in Department 129 of the Sacramento County Superior Court. Judge Gevercer was appointed to the bench by Governor Jerry Brown in 2012 and previously served in the California Attorney General’s Office.

Judges typically spend a year or two in Department 129 before moving on to other assignments within the court. Fortunately for all, the dedicated court staff who support Department 129 provide continuity over the years.

Hands of Elderly Parent and DaughterMost will and trust contests in California start several months after the death of the person who created the document. Such litigation has a forensic quality: did Mom have sufficient mental capacity back when she signed the will/trust, or was she the victim of undue influence? Mom is not around to testify as to what she thought and wanted, nor can expert witnesses meet her to evaluate her capacity. If the documents were executed many years ago, the trail of evidentiary breadcrumbs may be faint. A lawyer who contests old estate planning documents may find inspiration in Sherlock Holmes.

Increasingly, however, the fight over Mom’s trust will flare during her lifetime. For example, if Mom has moderate Alzheimer’s disease and a family member petitions the court to appoint a conservator over her estate (i.e., financial affairs), the court may review Mom’s estate plan and modify its terms if appropriate. Through the “substituted judgment” process laid out in the California Probate Code, the court for example might cancel a recent trust amendment on the ground that Mom did not sign it of her own free will, thereby restoring the prior version of the trust. In the conservatorship setting, the court need not wait for Mom’s death to evaluate the validity of the trust documents, and an earlier review may lead to a better result if evidence presently available, such as the testimony of a key witness, may be lost with the passage of time.

Undue influence is a major theme in trust and estate litigation. But when does advocacy for a change in an estate plan cross the line and become undue?

There is no bright line test for undue influence under California law. Almost always, the proof is indirect. While there is no video of Sister pressuring Mom to disinherit Brother on the drive over to the estate planning lawyer’s office, there may be compelling circumstantial evidence that Sister did just that. All of this leaves much to the discretion and life experience of the judge who decides the dispute.