Allen v. Stoddard (January 9, 2013, Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Case No. G046460)

Note: you should consider the holding in Allen v. Stoddard to be limited to the facts in that case, you should read the holding in its entirety, and, of course, you should always file a complaint and initiate legal action before the expiration of any possible statute of limitation.  Nevertheless, you might find the holding and reasoning in Allen v. Stoddard helpful if you are in a situation where a possible statute of limitation may have expired.

Allen filed a creditor claim in the Estate of Humpert, claiming that Humpert, with whom Allen had be in a stable, long-term committed relationship, had promised Allen that he “would be taken care of” should “anything happen” to Humpert.  Humpert died intestate, and there was no evidence Allen and Humpert ever registered as domestic partners, or married during that brief period in 2008 when same-sex couples could marry.  Allen filed the creditor’s claim against Humpert’s estate based on the “would be taken care of” promise made by Humpert.  The next month on May 19, 2011 the estate sent a formal notice of rejection of Allen’s claim.

Allen filed his complaint exactly 91 days from May 19, 2011. Stoddard, as estate administrator, successfully demurred to the complaint based on it being untimely under section 9353, subdivision (a)(1). A judgment of dismissal ensued, and Allen timely filed this appeal. 

On appeal the Court was confronted with the issue of whether Probate Code section 9353 irreconcilably conflicts with Code of Civil Procedure section 366.3.  The Court concluded that they do conflict on the narrow point of how much time a claimant against an estate has to file suit based on a promise to make a distribution from the estate, such as a contract to make a will. Section 9353 gives claimants 90 days from rejection of the claim by the estate to file suit; section 366.3 gives them a year from decedent’s death to file suit. Under the longstanding rule of construction that newer and more specific statutes take precedence over older and more general statutes, the Court concluded it is section 366.3’s time limit that controls.

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

600 people reached the top of Mt. Everest in 2012. This blog got about 7,100 views in 2012. If every person who reached the top of Mt. Everest viewed this blog, it would have taken 12 years to get that many views.

Click here to see the complete report.

Estate of Giraldin (California Supreme Court, December 20, 2012, Case No. S197694)

Estate of Giraldin is an important case which broadens the ability of beneficiaries to sue trustees for breach of trustee duty with respect to a revocable trust, and should be read carefully for the reasoning of the Court as that reasoning might also be applicable in other different situations.

Trustor created the William A. Giraldin Trust in February 2002.  The trust was revocable.  William was entitled to the benefits of the trust during his lifetime.  William appointed one of his sons, Timothy, trustee.  Timothy served as trustee from 2002 until William’s death in 2005 and thereafter.  Following William’s death Mary his wife was entitled to the benefits of the trust during her lifetime.  Following Mary’s death nine children would share equally in the remainder.  Following William’s death four of William’s children sued Timothy for his breaches of duty as trustee during the time that William was alive and the trust was revocable.  The primary issue on appeal was whether the four beneficiaries had standing to sue Timothy for alleged breach of trustee duty that occurred while William was alive and the trust was revocable.

The California Supreme Court held that the four beneficiaries have standing to sue the trustee for his alleged breaches of trustee duty that the trustee owed to William during William’s lifetime.  The opinion offers a detailed discussion about beneficiary standing, and appears to hold that a beneficiary’s standing is broader than might have been thought.  For example, it could be argued that the beneficiaries lacked standing because they were only contingent beneficiaries of the revocable trust with no right or entitlement to the benefits of the trust or of an accounting at the time that the alleged breaches occurred.  It also could be argued that the beneficiaries lacked standing post William’s death and that only a representative of William’s estate held that standing.  However, the Court’s decision could be read to hold that a trust beneficiary including a contingent beneficiary may have standing to bring suit with respect to matters involving the administration of the trust unless the Probate Code or case law specifically holds otherwise.  Accordingly, the holding in Estate of Giraldin his important not only for the facts of the case, but potentially also for other trust, trustee and non-trust and trustee Probate Code related situations.

Thorpe v. Reed (California Court of Appeal, Sixth District, Case No. H037330, December 13, 2012)

Holding that where the trust stated:

“Trustee shall be entitled to receive reasonable compensation for services in the administration of this Trust. A Special Trustee and any successor Trustee shall not be entitled to receive reasonable compensation for services in the administration of this Trust,”

the Court-appointed successor trustee was not entitled to compensation. The terms of the trust prevail. The successor trustee had a choice to accept the appointment as trustee or not. He elected to accept appointment, at no compensation pursuant to the terms of the trust.

Thomas Kinkade estate probate hearing continued to December 24, with Judge Cain in Santa Clara County Superior Court.  Click here for article.  Kinkade died April 6, 2012.  The case involves disputes over will and codicil documents including alleged holographic will documents – in other words, including for example, issues relating to Kinkade’s intent as to who would inherit, the validity of the purported will and codicil documents including the facts and circumstances relating to preparation, handwriting, and possibly computer forensics, possibly mental capacity issues, fraud and undue influence including the statutory prohibitions against inheritance, possibly interpretation of the various documents, possibly the new California tort intentional interference with inheritance, the shifting burdens of proof, and the various presumptions that might apply, in addition to others.

Why older adults become fraud victims more often – new study by UCLA, here’s the link, Click Here. 

See also my other blog (http://davidtate.wordpress.com)  as this is a possible risk management issue for estate planning attorneys, courts, banks and other financial institutions, and probably others that don’t come to mind at this time.

Dave Tate

I have been in trial for three weeks in a will contest case, plus pre-trial preparation.  The trial evidence will complete this coming week.  I will be returning to blogging.  Thanks.  Dave Tate