Forwarding Trust Owned Family Enterprises … trustees who also serve on Board … by Patricia Annino

I have run across a well-written and interesting article by attorney Patricia Annino, entitled Trust Owned Family Enterprises: Pitfalls and practical suggestions when naming trustees who also serve on Board of Directors: A case study. The article was published in FFI Practitioner. The following is a link to the article – I believe you will enjoy the situations that Patricia describes, some of which I have also seen in my cases – click on the following link for the article: https://digital.ffi.org/editions/trust-owned-family-enterprises-pitfalls-and-practical-suggestions-when-naming-trustees-who-also-serve-on-board-of-directors-a-case-study/

The following is a screenshot of the cover to the article. Enjoy. David Tate, Esq.

Advertisements

From Frameworks Institute – Elder Abuse Toolkit

The Frameworks Institute has developed a toolkit which analyzes problems with society’s view of elder abuse and recommends alternative more effective approaches to discussing elder abuse. The following is a link to the Frameworks Institute, Elder Abuse website page, and a screenshot of the initial website page. Best to you – David Tate, Esq.

Here is the link to the Frameworks Institute, Elder Abuse website page, http://frameworksinstitute.org/elder-abuse.html

And the following is a screenshot of the initial website page:

 

THE FEHA AND ADA PROHIBIT EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION – FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS BLOG: DISABILITY (REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION) AND AGE DISCRIMINATION

The following materials are from a couple of slides from my disability discrimination and reasonable accommodation materials. The EEOC and court decisions pertaining to disability discrimination and the reasonable accommodation requirement are voluminous – it is my understanding that the majority of EEOC decisions are in the disability and reasonable accommodation area.

The Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) prohibit employment and workplace discrimination, not limited to hiring, termination, conditions, benefits and terms.  The FEHA and the ADA both prohibit disability discrimination and require a “reasonable accommodation” process.  The FEHA specifically prohibits discrimination based on the following criteria (FEHA: Cal. Gov. Code §§12940-12951; ADA: 42 USC §§12111-12117; the FEHA also prohibits harassment in the workplace):

  • Age (40 and over)
  • Race
  • Ancestry
  • Religion
  • Color
  • Sex
  • Religious Creed
  • Sexual Orientation
  • Marital Status
  • National Origin
  • Denial of Family and Medical Care Leave
  • Disability (mental and physical)
  • Medical Condition (e.g., cancer and genetic characteristics)

What is the disability discrimination reasonable accommodation requirement? Is shall be an unlawful employment practice “for an employer . . . to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee. Nothing in this subdivision or in paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a) shall be construed to require an accommodation that is demonstrated by the employer or other covered entity to produce undue hardship to its operation.” FEHA: Cal. Gov. Code §12940(m); ADA: 42 USC §12112(b); see also slide 15 for further clarifying discussion.

* * * * *

California’s definition of elder and dependent adult abuse:

The following is the California definition of elder and dependent adult abuse (pursuant to the California Welfare and Institutions Code elder and dependent adult abuse statutes):

California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15610.07  

(a) “Abuse of an elder or a dependent adult” means any of the following:

(1) Physical abuse, neglect, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment with resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering.

(2) The deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering.

(3) Financial abuse, as defined in Section 15610.30.

Note that you have to look elsewhere for additional definitions. Such as, for example, “elder” (W&I Code Section 15610.27), “dependent adult” (W&I Code Section 15610.23), and “mental suffering” (W&I Code Section 15610.53).

I mention the definition of “mental suffering” because you will note that Section 15610.07 does not list undue influence as an act of abuse. However, Section 15610.07 does include mental suffering, and Section 15610.53 defines “mental suffering” as follows:

“Mental suffering” means fear, agitation, confusion, severe depression, or other forms of serious emotional distress that is brought about by forms of intimidating behavior, threats, harassment, or by deceptive acts performed or false or misleading statements made with malicious intent to agitate, confuse, frighten, or cause severe depression or serious emotional distress of the elder or dependent adult.

And you might also find useful the definition of “dependent adult” as defined at Section 15610.23 – I am specifically identifying the definition of “dependent adult” because the California abuse statutes apply to both “elders” and “dependent adults” whereas most discussions seem to drop or omit the “dependent adult” aspect:

(a) “Dependent adult” means any person between the ages of 18 and 64 years who resides in this state and who has physical or mental limitations that restrict his or her ability to carry out normal activities or to protect his or her rights, including, but not limited to, persons who have physical or developmental disabilities, or whose physical or mental abilities have diminished because of age.

(b) “Dependent adult” includes any person between the ages of 18 and 64 years who is admitted as an inpatient to a 24-hour health facility, as defined in Sections 1250, 1250.2, and 1250.3 of the Health and Safety Code.

The definition of the term “elder” is defined by Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15610.27 as follows: “Elder” means any person residing in this state, 65 years of age or older.

* * * * *

Don’t delay: allegations of incompetence could give beneficiary standing, but delay in taking action could bar a beneficiary from contesting a trust or will at a later date (laches), Drake v. Pinkham

Drake v. Pinkham (California Court of Appeal, Third District, Case No. C068747, decided May 28, 2013, ordered for publication June 21, 2013).

This case involves a daughter’s (Gina) contest of two of her mother’s (Josephine) trust amendments (amendments dated 2001 and 2004) on the grounds that at the time of the amendments Josephine lacked mental capacity, was unduly influenced by a second daughter (Janice), and did not understand the amendments or her estate.  On a motion for summary judgment the trial court found that Gina’s contest was barred by the statute of limitations and principles of collateral estoppel.  On appeal, the Court of Appeal did not consider the statute of limitations or collateral estoppel issues, but instead found that Gina’s contest was barred by the defense of laches.

Gina filed her contest after her mother’s October 2009 death.  However, several years earlier, in 2005, Gina had filed a petition requesting the court to confirm her appointment as co-trustee under the terms of the trust and amendments dated 1992, 1993 and 1999.  Gina claimed that Josephine lacked the ability to care for herself or act as trustee and Janice’s alleged undue influence over her – Gina alleged that after the death of Josephine’s husband Theodore Janice began progressively isolating Josephine to the point that Gina no longer had contact with her mother, and that Janice had complete control over Josephine including her finances and was acting as the sole trustee of the trust.  Filed an objection to Gina’s 2005 petition and attached to her objection copies of her 2001 and 2004 trust amendments. The 2001 Fourth Amendment eliminated Gina as a beneficiary and named Janice as the sole successor trustee, and the 2004 Fifth Amendment designated Janice as Josephine’s acting co-trustee and sole successor trustee.  At that time in 2005 Gina did not challenge the 2001 or 2004 amendments.  Instead, Gina entered into a settlement agreement in which Josephine represented that she was the sole acting trustee, and in her capacity as such on behalf of all successor trustees, she agreed not to sell, encumber, lease, rent, transfer or otherwise take any action affecting any real property of the trust without prior notice to Gina and Janice as provided in the trust.

On appeal the Court addressed several important issues that could have ramifications or that might at least be considered in cases where issues exist relating to mental capacity, undue influence, and understanding of the trust or will documents and the nature of the estate and its assets.

  1. On appeal Gina argued as a defense that in 2005 she did not have standing to contest the 2001 and 2004 amendments pursuant to Cal. Probate Code sections 17200 and 15800 because the trust was still revocable in 2005.  The Court of Appeal noted that under sections 17200 and 15800 a beneficiary lacks standing to challenge a trust so long as the “trust is revocable and the person holding the power to revoke the trust is competent.”  The Court held that it was not persuaded by Gina’s argument, holding that since Gina alleged in 2005 that Josephine was incompetent, those allegations by Gina in 2005 took the matter outside of the terms of section 15800, and with those allegations Gina had standing in 2005 to contest the trust amendments, although at trial she still would have had the burden of proving her contest of the amendments.
  2. The Court further held that laches barred Gina from contesting the 2001 and 2004 amendments after her mother died in 2009.  In pertinent part, the Court discussed that the defense of laches requires unreasonable delay plus either acquiescence in the act about which plaintiff complains or prejudice to the defendant resulting from any delay – and that any delay is measured from the time that the plaintiff knew or should have known about the alleged claim.  In 2005 Gina had the usual rights of a trust beneficiary and beneficiary legal standing if Gina simply alleged that Josephine was incompetent, which Gina did in fact allege in 2005.  Further, “Finally, Gina’s failure to bring the action until after Josephine had passed away was necessarily prejudicial where, as here, each and every cause of action set forth in the underlying petition centered on Josephine – her mental capacity, defendant’s influence over her, and her understanding of the Fourth [2001] and Fifth [2004] Amendments and her estate.  (See Bono v. Clark (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1420 [the death of an important witness may constitute prejudice]; Stafford v. Ballinger (1962) 199 Cal. App.2d 289, 296 [same].”

Take away from Drake v. Pinkham, assuming that the case is not further appealed to the California Supreme Court.

  1. As always, before you file any pleading, claim, allegation or paper with any court relating to a trust, will or other document with a no contest clause or to which a no contest clause applies, you must evaluate and make sure that the filing will not trigger the no contest clause.  If such a clause is triggered, the result might be that you are disinherited.  These are complicated issues – you need to consult with an attorney on these issues.
  2. A simple allegation that the trustor is incompetent might allow or provide the trust beneficiary or potential beneficiary with legal standing and certain beneficiary rights in an otherwise revocable trust under Cal. Probate Code sections 17200, 15800, the terms of the trust, accounting and information provisions, and other statutes.  Of course, the proof of those claims must still be established by the evidence.
  3. Allegations and claims, statements, and knowledge of facts by a beneficiary or potential beneficiary, or facts that a beneficiary or potential beneficiary should know, could trigger a requirement that the beneficiary or potential beneficiary bring suit and not delay bringing suit to enforce his or her rights and entitlements, or be barred from doing so later pursuant to the defense of laches such as if the testator dies or the testator’s mental competency declines as time passes.
  4. The defense of laches, i.e., delay, and case law relating to laches now take on renewed potential importance in trust, will, conservatorship and power of attorney litigation.  For example, if a beneficiary or potential beneficiary knows of a trust or will, or a trust amendment or will codicil, that is contrary to the beneficiary’s rights or interests, and the beneficiary simply believes that the trustor or testator might have had capacity issues or might have been unduly influenced, or that testamentary document seems contrary to what the trustor or testator would have naturally done or wanted or understood about his or her assets or estate, might that beneficiary or potential beneficiary be required to file a legal action on those possible claims without delay, or be barred by laches from doing so at a later time?  I have seen trust, will, conservatorship and power of attorney situations where people have delayed taking action – under the holding in Drake v. Pinkham they now need to consider the possible effect of delay and possible laches defenses against them if they do delay in bringing a legal action.

Best to you, David Tate, Esq.

Disclaimer and Warning.  This blog post and the contents and information contained in the post are not legal advice, do not create or cause an attorney client relationship with your or anyone else, and do not relate or pertain to any person, entity or factual situation, and I do not know the facts of your situation.  The contents of this blog post are only a summary of information which could change over time.  I have not advised you about your situation, and you definitely should consult with an attorney for your particular situation.

* * * * *

 

Dr. Kerry Burnight on Live Long and Master Aging – Loneliness, Aging, Technology and GrandPad

Below I have provided a link to a podcast with Dr. Kerry Burnight on Live Long and Master Aging, in which Dr. Burnight, a gerontologist, discusses many aspects of aging, including, for example, the value of older people, and how technology can help with aging loneliness. Dr. Burnight also discusses a product that she is involved with, the GrandPad and how they worked to make the product specifically useful for older users. The podcast is somewhat long; however, you will find that there are useful comments and information throughout. Here is the link to the podcast http://www.llamapodcast.com/kerry-burnight/

As I was listening to the podcast I started thinking about the usefulness of the GrandPad in terms of risk management or enterprise risk management (ERM), and legal duties, responsibilities and rights, in the context of nursing homes for example. Is a product like the GrandPad something that nursing homes should (or must?) provide or make available to their residents, to make it easier for a resident to safely stay in touch with family and friends, for socialization, for mental stimulation and to help prevent decline in mental capabilities, and for personal daily living enjoyment?  

Best to you, David Tate, Esq.

And here is a snapshot of the Live Long and Master Aging website page:

Snapshot of Kerry Burnight on Long Live and Master Aging

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA), Royse Law Firm, Menlo Park, California office, with offices in northern and southern California.  My blogs: trust, estate, elder abuse and conservatorship litigation http://californiaestatetrust.com, D&O, boards, audit committees, governance, etc. http://auditcommitteeupdate.com, workplace http://workplacelawreport.com

OVERVIEW OF A RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS THAT YOU CAN USE 03162018

Audit Committee 5 Lines of Success, Diligence, and Defense - David Tate, Esq, 05052018

COSO Enterprise Risk Management Framework ERM Components and Principles

David Tate, Esq., Overview of My Practice Areas (Royse Law Firm, Menlo Park, California office, with offices in northern and southern California. http://rroyselaw.com)

  • Civil Litigation: business, commercial, real estate, D&O, board and committee, founder, owner, investor, creditor, shareholder, M&A, and other disputes and litigation
  • Probate Court Litigation: trust, estate, elder abuse, and conservatorship disputes and litigation
  • Administration: trust and estate administration and contentious administrations representing fiduciaries and beneficiaries
  • Workplace (including discrimination) litigation and consulting
  • Board, director, committee and audit committee, and executive officer responsibilities and rights

Royse Law Firm – Overview of Firm Practice Areas – San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin

  • Corporate and Securities, Financing and Formation
  • Corporate Governance, D&O, Boards and Committees, Audit Committees, Etc.
  • Intellectual Property – Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Trade Secrets
  • International
  • Immigration
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Labor and Employment
  • Litigation (I broke out the litigation as this is my primary area of practice)
  •             Business & Commercial
  •             IP – Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Trade Secret, NDA
  •             Accountings, Fraud, Lost Income/Royalties, Etc.
  •             Internet Privacy, Hacking, Speech, Etc.
  •             Labor and Employment
  •             Mergers & Acquisitions
  •             Real Estate
  •             Owner, Founder, Investor, D&O, Board/Committee, Shareholder
  •             Lender/Debtor
  •             Investigations
  •             Trust, Estate, Conservatorship, Elder Abuse, and Administrations
  • Real Estate
  • Tax (US and International) and Tax Litigation
  • Technology Companies and Transactions, Including AgTech and HealthTech, Etc.
  • Wealth and Estate Planning, Trust and Estate Administration, and Disputes and Litigation

Disclaimer. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside or outside of California, and also does not provide legal or other professional advice to you or to anyone else, or about a specific situation – remember that laws are always changing – and also remember and be aware that you need to consult with an appropriate lawyer or other professional about your situation. This post also is not intended to and does not apply to any particular situation or person, nor does it provide and is not intended to provide any opinion or any other comments that in any manner state, suggest or imply that anyone or any entity has done anything unlawful, wrong or wrongful – instead, each situation must be fully evaluated with all of the evidence, whereas this post only includes summary comments about information that may or may not be accurate and that most likely will change over time.

Ohio Bests California On Elder Abuse Reporting Requirements

I came across the following US News article (see link below) – Ohio (my birth state) has a new elder abuse reporting law which expands the categories of people who are required to report elder abuse – as reported in the article:

“The Department of Job and Family Services says mandatory reporters now include more individuals in financial services, legal and medical professions.

The state says those can include pharmacists, dialysis technicians, firefighters, first responders, building inspectors, CPAs, real estate agents, bank employees, financial planners and notary publics.

Current reporters include lawyers, social workers and clergy. The expanded reporting requirements take effect Saturday following under a new Ohio law.”

Here is the link to the article Click Here For US News Article

California Welfare & Institutions Code Sections 15630 and 15630.1 identify mandated reporters of elder abuse in California.

Section 15630 identifies mandatory reporters of elder and dependent adult abuse (as defined at Section 15630(b)(1)) as follows:

(a) Any person who has assumed full or intermittent responsibility for the care or custody of an elder or dependent adult, whether or not he or she receives compensation, including administrators, supervisors, and any licensed staff of a public or private facility that provides care or services for elder or dependent adults, or any elder or dependent adult care custodian, health practitioner, clergy member, or employee of a county adult protective services agency or a local law enforcement agency, is a mandated reporter.

(b) (1) Any mandated reporter who, in his or her professional capacity, or within the scope of his or her employment, has observed or has knowledge of an incident that reasonably appears to be physical abuse, as defined in Section 15610.63, abandonment, abduction, isolation, financial abuse, or neglect, or is told by an elder or dependent adult that he or she has experienced behavior, including an act or omission, constituting physical abuse, as defined in Section 15610.63, abandonment, abduction, isolation, financial abuse, or neglect, or reasonably suspects that abuse, shall report the known or suspected instance of abuse by telephone or through a confidential Internet reporting tool, as authorized by Section 15658, immediately or as soon as practicably possible. If reported by telephone, a written report shall be sent, or an Internet report shall be made through the confidential Internet reporting tool established in Section 15658, within two working days.

California Welfare & Institutions Code Section 15630.1 identifies mandatory reporters of suspected elder and dependent adult financial abuse as follows:

(a) As used in this section, “mandated reporter of suspected financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult” means all officers and employees of financial institutions.

(b) As used in this section, the term “financial institution” means any of the following:

(1) A depository institution, as defined in Section 3(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. Sec. 1813(c)).

(2) An institution-affiliated party, as defined in Section 3(u) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. Sec. 1813(u)).

(3) A federal credit union or state credit union, as defined in Section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. Sec. 1752), including, but not limited to, an institution-affiliated party of a credit union, as defined in Section 206(r) of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. Sec. 1786(r)).

It has long been written that elder abuse is an epidemic. And yet, it goes on year after year. In California we are past due for expanded and improved mandatory reporting and mandatory reporter requirements, requirements that financial and investment, and similar businesses be required to have an elder client provide the name and information of a trusted family member or friend that the institution must contact in situations where the institution reasonably believes that there is a possibility that abuse is occurring or that the client lacks mental capacity to understand the issues presented or to make decisions or to resist abuse including possible undue influence or persuasion.

I have written and given presentations about elder abuse prevention, remedial actions and remedies, mandatory reporting requirements, and other related topics for years, and I have handled many cases involving financial, trust/will, deed and other elder abuse cases including undue influence or persuasion, lack of mental capacity or related mental limitations, forgery, fraud, etc.

I have also written that it is simply impossible for and people should not expect governmental agencies (such as adult protective services, police, district attorneys, etc.) to handle the multitude of reported (and unreported) cases of abuse – it is simply impossible for the agencies to handle the numbers of cases, the agencies do not have the staff to litigate these cases during the year or more that each case can take, and the agencies should coordinate more with other people outside of the agency or government who can also provide help and representation (qualified private lawyers, CPAs, financial and investment advisors, banks, mental and physical health professionals, etc.) .

So . . . the abuse, and situations in which a person lacks sufficient mental capacity understand or evaluate the issues at hand or the ability to resist undue influence, go on and on without adequate resources or attention . . . and now Ohio with its mandatory reporting requirements also has passed and bested California.

Best to you, David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA), Royse Law Firm, Menlo Park, California office, with offices in northern and southern California.  My blogs: trust, estate, elder abuse and conservatorship litigation http://californiaestatetrust.com, D&O, boards, audit committees, governance, etc. http://auditcommitteeupdate.com, workplace http://workplacelawreport.com

David Tate, Esq., Overview of My Practice Areas (Royse Law Firm, Menlo Park, California office, with offices in northern and southern California. http://rroyselaw.com)

  • Civil Litigation: business, commercial, real estate, D&O, board and committee, founder, owner, investor, creditor, shareholder, M&A, and other disputes and litigation
  • Probate Court Litigation: trust, estate, elder abuse, and conservatorship disputes and litigation
  • Administration: trust and estate administration and contentious administrations representing fiduciaries and beneficiaries
  • Workplace (including discrimination) litigation and consulting
  • Board, director, committee and audit committee, and executive officer responsibilities and rights

Royse Law Firm – Overview of Firm Practice Areas – San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin

  • Corporate and Securities, Financing and Formation
  • Corporate Governance, D&O, Boards and Committees, Audit Committees, Etc.
  • Intellectual Property – Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Trade Secrets
  • International
  • Immigration
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Labor and Employment
  • Litigation (I broke out the litigation as this is my primary area of practice)
  •             Business & Commercial
  •             IP – Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Trade Secret, NDA
  •             Accountings, Fraud, Lost Income/Royalties, Etc.
  •             Internet Privacy, Hacking, Speech, Etc.
  •             Labor and Employment
  •             Mergers & Acquisitions
  •             Real Estate
  •             Owner, Founder, Investor, D&O, Board/Committee, Shareholder
  •             Lender/Debtor
  •             Investigations
  •             Trust, Estate, Conservatorship, Elder Abuse, and Administrations
  • Real Estate
  • Tax (US and International) and Tax Litigation
  • Technology Companies and Transactions, Including AgTech and HealthTech, Etc.
  • Wealth and Estate Planning, Trust and Estate Administration, and Disputes and Litigation

Disclaimer. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside or outside of California, and also does not provide legal or other professional advice to you or to anyone else, or about a specific situation – remember that laws are always changing – and also remember and be aware that you need to consult with an appropriate lawyer or other professional about your situation. This post also is not intended to and does not apply to any particular situation or person, nor does it provide and is not intended to provide any opinion or any other comments that in any manner state, suggest or imply that anyone or any entity has done anything unlawful, wrong or wrongful – instead, each situation must be fully evaluated with all of the evidence, whereas this post only includes summary comments about information that may or may not be accurate and that most likely will change over time.