Author Archives: David Tate, Esq.

Inheritance From Actor Troy Donahue Estate – Equitable Estoppel Gives Beneficiary Legal Status

Posted on by

Actor Troy Donahue died in 2001. On August 6, 2015, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (Los Angeles) held that Janene Curtis, the biological daughter of actor Troy Donahue, who was adopted at birth and thus was not entitled to inherit by intestacy, nevertheless is a beneficiary entitled to recovery pursuant to the doctrine of equitable estoppel. In other words, equitable estoppel conferred upon Ms. Curtis legal beneficiary status whereas otherwise she had no legal right to inherit. You can read the Court’s decision at the following link, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14120595921206700250&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47 

In relevant part, the Court held that the separate legal doctrine of equitable estoppel conferred upon Ms. Curtis beneficiary status where the court appointed administrator of Mr. Donahue’s estate treated and communicated to Ms. Curtis as a beneficiary, Ms. Curtis relied upon the actions of the executor to her detriment, and the executor either knew that Ms. Curtis wasn’t an intestate beneficiary or was negligent in failing to know that Ms. Curtis wasn’t an intestate beneficiary.

This case is important because the Court applies the equitable estoppel doctrine in an inheritance case and cites other cases similarly holding. Although currently the decision is unpublished (the Court should change it to “published”), meaning that it cannot be cited as decisive legal authority in other cases, the case nevertheless is or might be relevant in other cases because it cites other legal authorities and provides a roadmap for the argument. Equitable estoppel can be another tool in estate, trust, conservatorship and elder abuse litigation cases.

Dave Tate, Esq. (California); Blog: http://californiaestatetrust.com; Email: tateatty@yahoo.com

 

Materials on Undue Influence and Susceptibility to Undue Influence

Posted on by

I have a high interest in the validity or lack of validity of will, trust and other estate planning and transfer documents including related mental capacity, undue influence, fraud, decedent or testator intent, document and wording interpretation, and elder abuse. These are issues or criteria that we very often see in will and trust disputes, and financial elder abuse. It’s not too difficult to find discussions in which the author defines undue influence in various legal terms or definitions, and in deed you can find similar discussions in my materials, including that the definitions have changed and are changing over time and that they also depend on the nature of the document or issue at hand including for example whether the document is a will or trust and the sophistication or complexity of the document and its contents. However, as a trial attorney dealing with evidence and expert witnesses the victim’s susceptibility to undue influence and whether or not the victim was in fact unduly influenced or unduly persuaded are equally or perhaps more interesting.

For example, there are many new articles being written about dementia and new findings about how early cognitive deficiencies are being found (i.e., much earlier that previously thought); however, a deeper look considers the extent to which the deficiency makes the person susceptible to undue influence and all of the factors that go into that evaluation. As I like to pass along to my readers worthwhile information and links written by other people, the following is a link that contains discussions about undue influence and susceptibility from a psychological perspective. I believe it is worthwhile reading. Click on the following link for the materials, CLICK HERE

And if you come across materials on these topics that you believe that I should read please do pass them along to me.

Thank you. Have a good weekend. Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco/California)

California Trustee and Beneficiary Responsibilities and Rights, a 7-Page Summary

Posted on by

Click on the following link for my 7-page paper discussing California trustee and beneficiary responsibilities and rights, A Summary of California Trustee and Beneficiary Responsibilities and Rights Dave Tate Esq 08012015

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco/California), http://californiaestatetrust.com, http://directorofficernews.com

Description of some of my trust, estate, conservatorship and elder abuse cases

Posted on by

The following are some of the trust, estate, conservatorship and elder abuse cases in which I have been involved.

Trust administration dispute and trial:
Represented a trustee in a very contentious trust administration. Two nephews thought that the trustee was in some manner not administering the trust and the real property properly, hired a very aggressive attorney, and spent a lot on attorneys’ fees. After distributions the nephews sued the trustee for breach of fiduciary duty. After a one week trial the trustee prevailed.

Will contest trial:
A 16-day will contest trial about an at-home computer software prepared will that left everything to the long-time live-in friend who the decedent would not marry, and nothing, not even personal property and family heirlooms, to the children who everyone testified the decedent loved. The testimony presented included family members and family friends, and computer and handwriting forensic experts. The court held: nevertheless there was not enough evidence to overturn the will.

Breach of fiduciary duty trial:
Trustee/beneficiary obtained multiple real property appraisals and then sought to sell the real property to her son for the appraised value. The other trust beneficiary objected. At trial the court held that the trustee/beneficiary breached her fiduciary duty in wanting to sell the property to her son. Neither the trustee/beneficiary nor the other beneficiary were happy with the court’s decision – both got together and settled the entire matter more favorably to both.

Breach of fiduciary duty and elder abuse trial:
A trust beneficiary brought an action against his trustee mom to stop the contract and sale of a trust commercial building at a significantly below market price. Mom sought to sell the property to a “friend” and ex-business partner of dad. The siblings were split – (1) either stop the sale because the property was worth a lot more and mom was being taken advantage of by the “friend”, or (2) let mom do what she wants and what will make her happy. After a 1-week court trial including valuation experts the sale was invalidated.

Trust contest and alleged oral agreement dispute:
Son claimed dad orally told him years ago that he would have some rights to the residential home, but mom and dad’s trust said otherwise. Close to trial and after multiple mediations the son withdraws his claim.

Multiple real property partition trials where owners or beneficiaries could not get along.

Conservatorship and financial elder abuse of mom by two strangers:
A lonely, nice, financially comfortable elderly woman was befriended by two men, both of whom were brothers. Mom loved corvette cars. The two men convinced mom to buy herself a corvette (V-8 engine) and another corvette for them. Daughter caught wind of it – went in for conservatorship and restraining orders. After some convincing the men abandoned the car and did not return.

Board and care facility financial elder abuse by two strangers:
A lonely, nice man was befriended by a younger man and woman couple, who come into the facility and spend a lot of time with the man in his room. The family heard of it. Conservatorship and stay away restraining orders are granted. The facility is supposed to keep the couple out but the couple keeps coming back and getting back in and are having the man start buying them gifts. The police tell the couple to stop, but they continue. When the police then threatened to arrest the couple they stop.

Grandfather wants to leave his house to his grandson:
Grandson and his wife helped take care of Grandfather. Grandfather lived in an expensive neighborhood. Grandfather wants to leave his house to his Grandson. APS got involved over issues relating to whether grandfather had mental capacity, knew what he was doing, and whether he was being unduly influenced. After extensive investigation APS concludes that all is okay.

Union post-death of judgment debtor action to recover remaining judgment:
Union recovered a judgment against a prior officer for embezzlement. The judgment debtor then died before the judgment was paid back, and the debtor’s surviving spouse would not pay the remaining amounts due. Brought multiple action and recovered the debt due (petition for probate and creditor claim, complaint for recovery of the creditor claim amount, action against the trust and its beneficiaries, and separate action against the surviving spouse for community property debt).

Multiple probate and trust actions on behalf of a bank to recovery on an unsecured loan after the debtor dies.

Administrative law action to stop a nursing home to stop the home from discharging a wheelchair resident who was backing up too fast – the SNF wanted to discharge the resident instead of fixing the problem – the ALJ ruled in favor of the resident but had to be forced into that decision as he wasn’t interested in the resident’s rights

Dispute whether an elderly husband and wife could stay at home:
Husband and wife wanted to continue living together and to stay at home. They had at-home care. One or both had possible dementia. There were also allegations of possible self-abuse (inadequate taking care of themselves), and they both liked to have a cocktail late in the day as both husband and wife were ex-military. After a contentious battle both were allowed to remain together at their home.

Dispute whether to disconnect mom from life prolonging hospital machines, and overmedications:
Mom was in a hospital, kept alive by machines. She did not have an advance directive. The siblings were split about whether to keep mom connected to the machines and whether she would have wanted to live that way. Mom could only blink her eyes. Experts came in on medical issues. The judge was asked to decide mom’s wishes. Eventually mom was disconnected. As it turned out, after mom was disconnected, the issue was improper and overmedication and how the medications were interacting – mom did not die, the medications were fixed – she lived a health, ambulatory life for 5 more years and died a natural death.

Nursing home drop and elder abuse:
Dad was a large man, and was prone to striking out when he was unsure what people were doing with him. The nursing home put a red sign above his bed stating that anytime he was moved from or to his bed (he had to be moved using a hoyer lift and was moved from his bed to a chair and back daily) there must be three certified nursing assistants present. Dad was moved using the hoyer lift with only two CNAs present. The hoyer lift tipped, dad was dropped, hit his head and subsequently died. The SNF blamed the CNAs. Testimony by the staff ultimately evidenced that there was inadequate staffing and that there never were enough CNAs available to have three people present.

Nursing home restraining jacket and elder abuse:
Nursing home CNA put dad in a restraining jacket and caused bad bruising to dad’s back and front torso so that the worker could get off work on time or early so to go see his girlfriend that night as it was Valentine’s Day.

Nursing home physical abuse of female resident:
A nursing home resident soiled herself. The male CNA was unhappy that he had to wash the resident – the CNA was rough with the resident and physically hurt and bruised her as he washed her in the shower.

Action against trustee for failure to diversify investments:
The trust terms allowed the trustee to invest essentially all of the assets in a stevedore company. The law firm that prepared the trust was also the successor trustee, and the stevedore company was also a client of the law firm. The value of the stevedore company was declining significantly year after year over a long period of time. A beneficiary brought suit against the trustee for damages.

Multiple other actions for or against trustees for accountings, and breach of fiduciary duties including investment breaches.

New California Case – An Unambiguous Will With A Mistake Can Be Reformed With Clear And Convincing Evidence – Estate of Duke

Posted on by

In re the Estate of Irving Duke
California Supreme Court, Case No: S199435, July 27, 2015

In Estate of Irving Duke the California Supreme Court has held that an unambiguous will with a mistake may be reformed if (1) clear and convincing evidence establishes that the will contains a mistake in the expression of the testator’s intent at the time the will was drafted and (2) clear and convincing evidence also establishes the testator’s actual specific intent at the time the will was drafted.

On the one hand, Duke is a good decision as cases have already held that the intent of the testator should prevail, which is a position with which I agree. On the other hand, the Court jumps through some hoops which could result in different standards or criteria for wills compared to trusts, and different standards or criteria for remedying mistakes compared to ambiguities. See, for example, the quotes below from the Court’s decision. The fact is that after over a century of will and trust case law, in addition to old, revised and new California Probate Code statutes, we continue to have in probate law a large body of legal authorities that variously apply differently in different situations and that can contradict. See, for example, my prior blog posts discussing undue influence case law and how the standards are or might be different in the circumstance of a will (or at least a “simple” will) compared to a trust.

The following are some of the interesting quotes from the Court in Estate of Duke.

“In cases in which clear and convincing evidence establishes both a mistake in the drafting of the will and the testator’s actual and specific intent at the time the will was drafted, it is plain that denying reformation would defeat the testator’s intent and result in unjust enrichment of unintended beneficiaries. Given that the paramount concern in construing a will is to determine the subjective intent of the testator ( Estate of Russell, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 205; 4 Page on Wills (Bowe-Parker rev. 2004) § 30.1, p. 2), only significant countervailing considerations can justify a rule categorically denying reformation.”

“Fourth, the Radins assert that allowing reformation will result in a significant increase in probate litigation and expenses. Claimants have long been entitled, however, to present extrinsic evidence to establish that a will is ambiguous despite the fact that it appears to be unambiguous. ( Estate of Russell, supra, 69 Cal.2d at pp. 206-213.) Therefore, probate courts already receive extrinsic evidence of testator intent from claimants attempting to reform a will through the doctrine of ambiguity. (Cf. Buss v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 35, 57 [in rejecting the contention that requiring only a preponderance of the evidence to establish an insurer’s right to reimbursement will open the floodgates of litigation, the court noted that “the ‘floodgates’ have been open for quite some time”].) The task of deciding whether the evidence establishes by clear and convincing evidence that a mistake was made in the drafting of the will is a relatively small additional burden, because the court is already evaluating the evidence’s probative value to determine the existence of an ambiguity. FN:13 To the extent additional claims are made that are based on a theory of mistake rather than a theory of ambiguity, the heightened evidentiary standard will help the probate court to filter out weak claims. Finally, fear of additional judicial burdens is not an adequate reason to deny relief that would serve the paramount purpose of distributing property in accordance with the testator’s intent. (See Buss, at p. 58 [acknowledging that the future might bring more claims for reimbursement, “[b]ut the possible invocation of this right — or any other — is not a sufficient basis for its abrogation or disapproval”]; Ochoa v. Superior Court (1985) 39 Cal.3d 159, 171 [rejecting a proposed limit on the circumstances in which negligent infliction of emotional distress may be established, despite claim of ” ‘infinite liability’ “].)”

“Fifth, the Radins discount justifications for allowing reformation in appropriate circumstances. They assert that Probate Code section 6110, subdivision (c)(2), which allows the probate of a will that was not executed in compliance with statutory attestation requirements if clear and convincing evidence establishes that the testator intended the writing to be a will, was not intended to lessen required formalities. Although section 6110 does not reduce the formalities of attestation, it reflects a judgment that the formalities should not be allowed to defeat the testator’s intent when clear and convincing evidence satisfies the evidentiary concerns underlying the formalities of the statute of wills.”

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco / California)

New California Case – the Probate Court Follows the Code of Civil Procedure Unless the Probate Code Provides Otherwise

Posted on by

Katzenstein v. Chabad of Poway, Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, No. D066340, filed June 15, 2015

In a rather harsh new case the California Court of Appeal reminds us that the Probate Court is a division of the Superior Court and that procedures in the Probate Court follow the Code of Civil Procedure unless the Probate Code provides otherwise.

In relevant part, Katzenstein in her capacity as Trustee filed a Petition in Probate Court following the death of Robert Feinberg who was the cosettlor and former cotrustee of the Trust and the named insured in two life insurance policies.

In the Petition, Trustee sought: (1) a determination that the Trust is the beneficiary of, and therefore entitled to the proceeds from, one of the insurance policies; and (2) damages against Chabad of Poway for interfering with the payment of that policy’s benefits to the Trust.

Chabad responded to the Petition by filing a document entitled “Claimant’s Objection and Counter Claim [sic] to Petition filed by Trustee to Determine Ownership of Life Insurance Policy Proceeds”.

In an unsigned minute order following summary judgment proceedings initiated by Trustee, the Superior Court sua sponte struck Chabad’s Objection and Counterclaim on the basis that the Code of Civil Procedure precludes a party from seeking affirmative relief in an answer.

Chabad appealed. However, because an unsigned minute order is not an appealable order under either the Code of Civil Procedure or the Probate Code, the Court of Appeal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and therefore dismissed Chabad’s appeal.

I refer to the decision at the Superior Court level as being harsh because it would have been appropriate for the Superior Court to have allowed the Objection, or to have allowed amendment of the pleading because clearly the Objection and Counterclaim could have been split into two separate documents.

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco / California) http://californiaestatetrust.com

Using Social Security Information To Restrict The Rights Of Some Beneficiaries To Own Guns

Posted on by

Here’s an interesting development and article from the Los Angeles Times, CLICK HERE, discussing the Obama Administration’s push to use social security and social security information about elder and other beneficiary disabilities and limitations as a means to restrict people from owning guns. Putting aside whether you are pro-gun or anti-gun, I have problems with the use of that information for this purpose from a government mandated program, which information also should be private, how the government would determine that someone is incapable of owning a gun, and that the determination is made without any legal adjudication by an independent court. This effort targets the elderly, people who have been mandated to pay into the social security system, and people with disabilities including disabilities that don’t necessarily establish an inability to own a gun.

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco / California).

NAIC Seniors Consumer Insurance Fraud Alert – An Area Of Board Oversight?

Posted on by

The following is a link to something interesting that I came across – an alert by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners about insurance fraud scams against seniors.

Click to access legal_bulletin_seniors_beware.pdf

. The alert contains interesting statistics about the amount of possible fraud, such as “free lunch” seminars. Not to say that a “free lunch” seminar is necessarily a fraud scheme. But as we all know, the purpose of a “free” seminar is to find buyers. For me, however, the alert points to a different problem. The alert assumes that a senior who goes to a “free” seminar, for example, is mentally competent to follow the steps indicated to critically evaluate and resist the fraud. That assumption begs the question or issue: does the senior have the mental competency and fortitude to critically evaluate and resist the sales pitch? In my experience, it’s not uncommon that a senior does not have that mental capacity. Thus, in that circumstance the senior does not have the mental capacity to follow the recommendations provided by the NAIC in its alert, in which case the alert is useless, which also is the intent of the insurance sales person who is trying to sell a senior an insurance product that is not appropriate for the senior. At least policies and procedures, and board oversight of those policies and procedures, are needed so that the insurance entity and broker have in place detailed policies and procedures to determine that only appropriate policies are sold, through appropriate marketing means, with special attention to and oversight of marketing and policies sold to seniors, with the ability of the senior to rescind the policy, without having to hire legal counsel to fight it out with the insurance entity. Where is this requirement, how is it implemented, and where is the board’s active oversight?

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco / California), http://californiaestatetrust.com, http://directorofficernews.com

Caregiver Training for Alzheimer’s and Dementia Wandering – UCLA Alzheimer’s and Dementia Care Program

Posted on by

I came across this, and other videos, produced by UCLA. This approximately 4 minute video discusses caregiver training for Alzheimer’s and dementia wandering.  You might find it helpful or at least interesting. Dave Tate, Esq.

There Needs To Be A Law – Petitioning For Conservatorship Should Not Disinherit You

Posted on by

Short and sweet. I’m not sure what the wording should be, but we need a law that to some extent protects a person from being disinherited for filing a petition for conservatorship.

The situation that I have in mind: a son or daughter files a petition for conservatorship of their mother or father. In doing so, the son or daughter risks that mom or dad will be very angry with the petition and will seek to change their estate planning to exclude or disinherit the son or daughter.  There needs to be some protection for the son or daughter, whether the petition for conservatorship is granted or not.

I’m not saying that I favor conservatorships. A conservatorship can be a serious restriction on a person’s constitutional rights and freedom. All I’m saying is that a son or daughter should not have to fear possible disinheritance for filing a petition for conservatorship in a situation where there is no finding that the petition was filed in bad faith or where there is evidence that a conservatorship might be necessary even if less restrictive options are available.

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco and California), click link to this blog, Law Office of David W. Tate, and also working with Albertson & Davidson LLP, northern and southern California click link to Albertson & Davidson website.