Most California trust and estate disputes involve adults who can make their own choices about what to seek and how hard to litigate, such as the common scenario of siblings competing for assets. But many disputes, or at least potential disagreements, involve people who can’t fend for themselves, such as mentally incapacitated adults, children
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
A key feature of a California revocable trust is that it can be amended. Revising a trust can, however, seem like an irksome chore so it’s common for creators of trusts (i.e., “settlors” or “trustors”) to shrug off an amendment until it becomes clear they have limited time to settle their affairs.
Such procrastination invites mistakes, including failure to comply with a trust’s built-in procedure for amendments. Indeed, while many trust instruments do not specifically prescribe how they may be amended, others do – often requiring “delivery” of the amendment to the trustees or settlors, that the amendment be signed, or both.
What happens when a settlor does not fully comply with the trust instrument’s modification procedure, even though it’s achingly obvious that he intended to amend his trust? Should a court rigidly bind him to the modification procedure or should it follow what seem to be his dying wishes? The California Court of Appeal faced this conundrum recently in Pena v. Dey (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 546. The court required strict compliance with the trust’s modification procedure, rejecting a Post-it® note as satisfying a signature requirement.
Many California will and trust disputes arise from ambiguity in the document with respect to who is entitled to an asset. Maybe the document was hazy from the start or perhaps circumstances have changed such that the rightful recipient is no longer clear.
Two cases decided in the California Court of Appeal last year illustrate the conflicts that surface over interpreting wills and trusts. In both cases, coincidentally involving 35 percent shares, the appellate courts overruled the trial courts, nicely illustrating the complexities of will and trust interpretation. California Probate Code sections 21101-21118, though obscure, can be pivotal in the analysis.
Are six sibling co-trustees too many cooks in the kitchen? Many California trust disputes arise from disagreements among sibling co-trustees over how to administer Mom and Dad’s trust after the parents have passed. They all have a strong sense of what Mom and Dad wanted, but they don’t agree on what it was. Thus, trust and estate litigators can be described as “sibling lawyers.”
A recent appellate opinion illustrates such co-trustee conflict and shows the unpredictability of our judicial process. In Trolan v. Trolan (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 939, the California Court of Appeal addressed issues of trust interpretation and trustee removal in a situation where five siblings were aligned against the sixth.
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.
A trust is a vehicle for managing and disposing of property. Just as you don’t want to leave your suitcase on the beach when you return from vacation, you should ensure that your assets are securely loaded into the trust you have created. If you don’t, your assets may end up held in the legal equivalent of a “lost and found” with the competing claims resolved only by adjudication in a California courthouse. Disputes over property ownership are all too common in California trust litigation.
A case published last week by the California Court of Appeal illustrates this point. In Carne v. Worthington, the court considered whether Kenneth Liebler had transferred certain real estate from a trust he created in 1985 to a trust he created in 2009. Liebler stated in the 2009 trust instrument “I transfer to my Trustee the property listed in Schedule A, attached to this agreement” and listed the real estate in the attached schedule. Liebler could have avoided litigation simply by signing and recording a deed transferring the property from himself as trustee of the 1985 trust to the trustees of the newly-created 2009 trust.
A 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
The 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.
Sound estate planning requires a clear description of how property will pass upon death – in other words, who gets what. So what happens when the written terms differ from what the will’s creator actually wanted?
Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court ruled in Estate of Duke (2015) 61 Cal.4th 871 that courts may correct a mistake in the wording of a will even if the language in question is not ambiguous. The proponent of the correction (also known as reformation) must provide clear and convincing evidence of both (1) a mistake in the expression of intent and (2) the actual specific intent of the maker when the will was written. The decision opens the door in California to a new kind of trust and estate litigation.