Someone who should not be a suicide decedent’s representative, or control or get the suicide decedent’s remains, property or assets – every state needs a law and cause of action. In loving memory of Deborah Ann Tate Trotta (September 12, 2021).

There is someone or a type or category of person who should not be allowed to be the representative of a decedent who died by ending her or his own life (i.e., by suicide), or to control, or to get the decedent’s remains, property or assets – every state needs a law and a cause of action to prevent this – below is draft wording that I propose:

(1)  If someone ends her or his own life, i.e., commits suicide,

(2)  At least in part because of someone else, or because of something that someone else did or did not do, or because of a bad relationship, that in some manner contributed to, or was relevant to, or was associated with, or was involved in, or that influenced the decedent ending her or his own life,

(3)  And if that person or that person’s action or inaction was in some manner a breach of a duty that that person had or owed to the decedent,

(4) Each state should have a law that allows for a claim or cause of action to be made that the person who breached the duty cannot be the representative of the decedent or inherit, recover or receive the things, property and assets in which the decedent had an interest or benefit prior to her or his death, regardless of the estate planning documents, representation documents, property ownership documents or other similar documents of the decedent, and regardless of the other representation and inheritance or asset statutes and laws that exist at the time of the decedent’s death.

Because whatever the documents or the statutory provisions were at the time, under those circumstances the decedent would not or might not want or wish for the other person to be her or his representative, or to inherit, recover or receive her or his real property, personal property and other assets and things – and under the circumstances it is not likely and would not be expected that the person who is going to commit suicide is going to run out and change her or his documents before ending her or his life. The overriding consideration and objective is that the decedent’s representative, and to whom the decedent’s things, property and asset are distributed should be in accord with the decedent’s wishes as best as they can be determined at the time of decedent’s death after taking everything into consideration.

Or, in the alternative, version two:

(1) If someone ends her or his own life, i.e., commits suicide,

(2) And if the decedent had in some manner communicated or provided some manner of communication arguably evidencing in some manner that she or he would not want a particular person, or particular people, to be the representative of the decedent or inherit, recover or receive the things, property and assets in which the decedent had an interest or benefit prior to her or his death,

(3) Each state should have a law that allows for a claim or cause of action to be made that the person or people identified in (2) above cannot be the representative of the decedent or inherit, recover or receive the things, property and assets in which the decedent had an interest or benefit prior to her or his death, regardless of the estate planning documents, representation documents, property ownership documents or other similar documents of the decedent, and regardless of the other representation and inheritance or asset statutes and laws that exist at the time of the decedent’s death.

Again, because whatever the documents or the statutory provisions were at the time, under those circumstances the decedent would not or might not want or wish for the other person or people to be her or his representative, or to inherit, recover or receive her or his real property, personal property and other assets and things – and under the circumstances it is not likely and would not be expected that the person who is going to commit suicide is going to run out and change her or his documents before ending her or his life. Again, the overriding consideration and objective is that the decedent’s representative, and to whom the decedent’s things, property and asset are distributed should be in accord with the decedent’s wishes as best as they can be determined at the time of decedent’s death after taking everything into consideration.

Does your state have such a law, claim or cause of action? Your state should. These are issues and situations of law, fact and evidence, relationships, personalities, and duties, actions and conduct, about which I will continue to connect, share and collaborate with other people who have similar concerns. Depending on the relationships of the people involved, and on the age of the decedent, an argument might also be made that dishonoring the wishes of the decedent it might be considered a form of spousal and/or elder abuse, or perhaps decedent abuse, but occurring post-death. However, I am not aware that state laws have progressed that far.

_________________________________________

In Loving Memory of Deborah Ann Tate Trotta (September 12, 2021). Discussion is provided below.

Deb and her beloved Annie:

My beloved sister Deb’s body was found on September 12, 2021, at a beach that she frequented only a few miles from her home in Hobe Sound, Florida. When I was called by husband on September 12, 2021, and was told that Deb had been missing since the prior morning of September 11 (24+ hours), and when I then spoke with the detective a short time later on September 12 after Deb’s body was found at the beach reserve, I said that I wanted to know what had happened, and everything that had occurred and a full investigation. I was looking for answers – who wouldn’t want answers in these situations? There are also a couple of my earlier posts about Deb, and her situation before and after her death.

Deb’s death was tragic, and I have learned and have come to know much. Now when I read or hear in the news that someone has ended her or his own life I wonder why, what were the causal circumstances, what was said or not, what were the relationships, and what could or might have been done (in some circumstances legally should have been done) to prevent and avoid this tragedy? And in Deb’s case made all the more tragic by what has occurred post- death, which should not happen to or be caused upon any decedent or her or his remains and property in violation and breach of her or his wishes in the circumstance of suicide or in any circumstance – and also should not happen to or be caused upon the family, relatives and life-long friends who loved and cared about Deb.

Unfortunately getting Deb’s ashes to be spread in California as Deb wished, Deb’s things and personal items and property, and easily available information all have been denied. Since September 12, 2021, absolutely everything even including Deb’s ashes, pictures, phone, videos, clothes, Annie, and all personal and Tate legacy and ancestry property has been kept, kept secret, and controlled in Florida – this has been a learning process – at that time I never would have believed that this would occur or that someone would do this, but I certainly do now with what I have experienced and have come to learn and know.

It has been 15+ months, and counting, and two Christmases since Deb’s body was found. Two elder people who cared about Deb have also themselves passed during that time. Long ago Deb should have been freed and released and her ashes obtained from Florida control, possession and secrecy to be spread in California as Deb wished, and to allow some closure for Deb, her family and relatives, Deb’s life-long friends, and ancestors. Long ago Deb’s personal property including Tate legacy and ancestry items and things, pictures, videos, notes and writings, messages, texts, and emails, jewelry, phone, Annie, a particular blanket, and other things and items also should have been freed and released and obtained from Florida possession, control and secrecy. What person would not simply do so, at least for Deb?

I tried several, perhaps many, times to resolve this and to get Deb’s ashes to California. It is difficult to imagine a situation and a case that would not be easier to resolve, except for the possession, control, secrecy and personality issues that exist.

Deb was a naturally positive and beautiful person who looked for the good in people and situations with a view toward making things better. The Medical Examiner has said that Deb ended her own life. Prior to Deb’s situation I had never been directly impacted by someone ending their own life. Whatever the circumstances are, and certainly the circumstances vary from person to person, it must mean that at that time the person is so distraught and unhappy and that she or he cannot get out of or solve the problem circumstances, situation, predicament, or relationship, such that she or he can only see ending her or his life as the sole choice and solution.

Indeed, there was a supposed note. I say supposed because what happened to the supposed note was controlled and I was denied access. I did obtain the short wording of the possible note that was typed in the Sheriff’s report. There is also other information including September 11-12, 2021, information on Deb’s phone and the phone account to which I have also been denied all access. Regarding the supposed note, at times Deb could also be a doodler who would simply write things to herself just for consideration or thinking purposes. A lot of people do that.

The supposed note does not mention ending her life – it is a very short note – but it does start with, and end with the same two words “Best Solution.” That is really sad – that with what had occurred and when Deb considered her circumstances, predicament, relationship, and the personalities, ending her own life by gunshot was her best and only solution. There should have been other options available as instead Deb was getting a divorce attorney with the help of others, and Deb talked about her wish that she could get access to money (i.e., get access to her money, investments and financial resources) to move back to California with her beloved Annie (her standard poodle who Deb named after Anne (Zitter) Tate). Deb said that a private investigator should be hired so that she could find out and get access to the accounts and what was and should have been Deb’s money and investments. About Annie who Deb loved 100% unconditionally, Deb named a few people to whom Annie should go if the need ever arose – and Deb communicated that under no circumstances should Annie ever go to husband.

With the help of others, I now know enough about what had been happening and what happened. We will never know all of the facts as things, information and access have been controlled and denied.

They had an argument on September 11, 2021 (as noted per the Sheriff’s report). There is independent information about what was said about divorce, which also confirms what Deb had said about threat of divorce and a day or two earlier that she had finally decided to go forward with the divorce. Unfortunately, other than that there had been an argument, the Sheriff’s report contains no other information about the relationship or the argument, or about what was said, or anything about divorce – instead, what the detective was told was that Deb suffered from extreme paranoia and would practice suicide. Consider, if that had been true, after the argument the morning of September 11, no phone calls were made to Deb’s family, relatives, or close life-long friends, not even to Deb’s local, close Florida relatives.

The scenario that I have been experiencing post-Deb’s death, i.e., that absolutely everything even including Deb’s ashes, pictures, phone, videos, clothes, jewelry and keepsakes, and all personal and Tate legacy and ancestry property and things have all been kept, kept secret, and controlled in Florida, has been as Deb had been describing her situation and relationship. Deb had also expressed concern about her lack of access to and her lack of information about the money, investments and finances, and her wanting to know where they were or why they were gone?

Based on information that has been presented, on the morning of September 11, the argument and the divorce process and financial terms that were told or directed at Deb were limiting, controlling, restricting and unfavorable to Deb and her entitlements after being in that marriage for 20 years. A different approach would have been easy, such as: Deb, here is the information that you want about the accounts, money, investments and finances; here is $30,000 to $50,000 right now; yes, instead of my attorney also representing you, you should hire your own separate independent attorney to represent your interests; and the attorneys will work out the alimony, sale of asset and divisions after full disclosure of information and production of documents.

Despite the denials of access and the possible presumptions of evidence that those denials raise, Deb’s texts and what she said, in addition to information from other people close to Deb and the affidavits filed, provide evidence of much of what had occurred and was said. And now in keeping with pre-death as Deb described, post- Deb’s death it has been made necessary to fight in Court just to get anything at all including Deb’s ashes, Deb’s personal matters, information, etc., from husband who was divorcing Deb and who Deb was finally divorcing before instead becoming convinced that ending her own life by gunshot was her “Best Solution.”

I now truly believe that unless it is ordered by the Court, we will never have Deb’s ashes to be spread in the locations in California as Deb had wished, nor will we ever have Deb’s personal property and the Tate legacy and ancestry personal property. I will never understand why someone, anyone, would ever control and deny Deb’s ashes and her personal items, and Deb’s wishes, and in a relationship that Deb expressed as very bad (and worse) and headed for divorce. In fact, we do not know what if anything still exists (the existence of Deb’s ashes, Deb’s personal and Tate property, Deb’s other things and assets are all still controlled and being kept secret and unknown). An order to compel production and even information is required. For all we know, Deb/Deb’s ashes and her property all were disposed of after her death. The continuing possession, control and secrecy reflect what Deb had been describing before her death.

People have differing views of what happens to the soul or spirit of a person after death and the hereafter. It is impossible for me to reconcile that post-death the spreading of Deb’s ashes in the locations that Deb loved and as Deb had wished in Marin and Sonoma Counties, California, and some manner of closure for Deb, and for her family, life-long friends, and ancestors is being controlled and prevented by someone who was divorcing from Deb and who Deb had decided to divorce.

Months of texts from Deb and her communications have been attached to my affidavit filed with the Court, in addition to two additional affidavits, and also including communications from divorcing husband.

Consider my comments above about the need for states to have a law and a cause of action (I’ll call it Deb’s law). Please also learn more about mental health, damaging and dangerous relationships and personalities, spousal duties, elder and spousal abuse, and actions that can be taken to understand and to help people who are or who might be considering ending their own life.

These have become issues and situations of law, fact and evidence about which I am now and will continue to be involved. I am also tweaking my approach a bit and working to include, suggest, discuss, and involve professions, professionals within a profession, groups and organizations that have experience, backgrounds, and connections that are different than mine and who wear different hats. For example, estate planning and elder attorneys (whereas I primarily do litigation and disputes in those areas); investment, FINRA, and wealth advisors; CPAs, financial planners, and tax preparers; bankers and financial institutions; health and medical professionals including mental and physical health; fiduciaries including trustees, executors, and attorneys in fact under a power of attorney, people who are designated as trusted contacts; trusted family; trusted friends; and others. Please excuse if some of the above parts might sound a bit repetitive; however, what had been occurring and the situation before Deb’s death, and post- Deb’s death what has continued to happen, and is happening and being caused upon Deb and her family, relatives, life-long friends and ancestors are wrong and inappropriate, secretive, controlling and possessive, like a macabre twilight zone or nightmare, or there is an intent. We have reached the end of 2022 and move into 2023. More to follow.

Good people need to be on the lookout, and take actions.

Thank you for reading. Please feel free to pass this blog and blog post and information to other people who would be interested.

* * * * * * *

Best to you,

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

  • Business litigation and disputes – business, breach of contract/commercial, co-owners, shareholders, investors, founders, workplace and employment, environmental, D&O, governance, boards and committees.
  • Trust, estate and probate court litigation and disputes – trust, estate, probate, elder and dependent abuse, conservatorship, POA, real property, mental health and care, mental capacity, undue influence, conflicts of interest, and contentious administrations.
  • Governance, boards, audit and governance committees, investigations, auditing, ESG, etc.
  • Mediator and facilitating dispute resolution:
    • Trust, estate, probate, conservatorship, elder and dependent abuse, etc.
    • Business, breach of contract/commercial, owner, shareholder, investor, etc.
    • D&O, board, audit and governance committee, accountant and CPA related.
    • Other: workplace and employment, environmental, trade secret.

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation, or as or for my opinions and views on the subject matter.

Also note – sometimes I include links to or comments about materials from other organizations or people – if I do so, it is because I believe that the materials are worthwhile reading or viewing; however, that doesn’t mean that I don’t or might not have a different view about some or even all of the subject matter or materials, or that I necessarily agree with, or agree with everything about or relating to, that organization or person, or those materials or the subject matter.

Please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My two blogs are:

http://tateattorney.com – business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. – previously at http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing only as an attorney in California.

Can You Stop An Aging Parent From Self-Neglect At Home – by Carolyn Rosenblatt

The following is a good discussion by Carolyn Rosenblatt, on a topic that is ongoing for many, many families – can you stop an aging parent from self-neglect at home? The link to Carolyn’s article is provided below.

When is it self-neglect or self-abuse, and what can or do you do about it?

Unless you have the cooperation of the parent (and other family members), and the needed financial, insurance coverage, and time resources, and know who to contact, the issues are even more difficult to resolve. I see many family members who are dealing with these issues in trust, power of attorney, and conservatorship situations. What are the responsibilities/duties and rights, and what options are available and can be achieved? I am also aware of one California case involving a finding of elder abuse in a situation where family members did not take action to try to remedy the situation.

These issues are or can be difficult even with cooperation and resources. To see Carolyn’s article, CLICK HERE.

Dave Tate, Esq. San Francisco and California

The Nursing Home Resident Care Plan – Indispensable Critical Importance

Below I have pasted 22 California Code of Regulations section 72311, which is one of the California laws that discusses the requirement that a nursing home develop, have, implement and update a care plan for each resident. The resident’s care in part flows from that care plan, which establishes processes and procedures for that resident. The care plan must be updated as often as necessary to reflect a change in the resident’s condition. Failure to satisfy care plan requirements is negligence, and might also constitute negligence per se, neglect, abandonment, gross negligence, elder abuse and/or intentional wrongdoing. It reminds me of a case that I handled – although the care plan called for 3 CNAs to move the resident, after the fall in injury, the CNAs testified that there were never 3 CNAs present or used because the staffing scheduled by the nursing home was inadequate.

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco and California)

22 CCR § 72311
§ 72311. Nursing Service – General.

(a) Nursing service shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) Planning of patient care, which shall include at least the following:
(A) Identification of care needs based upon an initial written and continuing assessment of the patient’s needs with input, as necessary, from health professionals involved in the care of the patient. Initial assessments shall commence at the time of admission of the patient and be completed within seven days after admission.
(B) Development of an individual, written patient care plan which indicates the care to be given, the objectives to be accomplished and the professional discipline responsible for each element of care. Objectives shall be measurable and time-limited.
(C) Reviewing, evaluating and updating of the patient care plan as necessary by the nursing staff and other professional personnel involved in the care of the patient at least quarterly, and more often if there is a change in the patient’s condition.
(2) Implementing of each patient’s care plan according to the methods indicated. Each patient’s care shall be based on this plan.
(3) Notifying the attending licensed healthcare practitioner acting within the scope of his or her professional licensure promptly of:
(A) The admission of a patient.
(B) Any sudden and/or marked adverse change in signs, symptoms or behavior exhibited by a patient.
(C) An unusual occurrence, as provided in Section 72541, involving a patient.
(D) A change in weight of five pounds or more within a 30-day period unless a different stipulation has been stated in writing by the patient’s licensed healthcare practitioner acting within the scope of his or her professional licensure.
(E) Any untoward response or reaction by a patient to a medication or treatment.
(F) Any error in the administration of a medication or treatment to a patient which is life threatening and presents a risk to the patient.
(G) The facility’s inability to obtain or administer, on a prompt and timely basis, drugs, equipment, supplies or services as prescribed under conditions which present a risk to the health, safety or security of the patient.
(b) All attempts to notify licensed healthcare practitioners acting within the scope of his or her professional licensure shall be noted in the patient’s health record including the time and method of communication and the name of the person acknowledging contact, if any. If the attending licensed healthcare practitioner acting within the scope of his or her professional licensure or his or her designee is not readily available, emergency medical care shall be provided as outlined in Section 72301(g).
(c) Licensed nursing personnel shall ensure that patients are served the diets as ordered by the attending licensed healthcare practitioner acting within the scope of his or her professional licensure.
* * * * *

IMPORTANT NEW CONSERVATORSHIP JURY RIGHT CASE (LPS) – AND THE IMPACT ON PROBATE CONSERVATORSHIP JURY RIGHT

Conservatorship of Kevin A., California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, October 2, 2015, Case No. F070914

In the LPS (Lanterman-Petris-Short Act) conservatorship of Kevin A. the Court of Appeal held that the proposed conservatee, Kevin A., was denied his right to a jury trial where he objected to the petition for conservatorship and he personally expressed his request for a trial by jury, but the Court nevertheless proceeded to determine the matter without a jury. Here is a copy of the Opinion, Conservatorship of Kevin A. Opinion from Court Website

In relevant part, the Court held as follows:

  1. In a situation where a proposed conservatee objects to or contests the petition for conservatorship, the right to proceed before a jury at trial, as opposed to an adjudication by the Court, rests completely with the proposed conservatee, not with the proposed conservatee’s attorney or the Court, unless the Court first finds that there is substantial evidence that the proposed conservatee lacks the capacity to decide for himself or herself whether to proceed before a jury.
  2. In Kevin A. the Court made no specific finding that Kevin A. lacked capacity to decide for himself whether to proceed before a jury.
  3. Alternatively, if the Court determines that there is substantial evidence that the proposed conservatee lacks the capacity to decide whether to proceed before a jury, the control of the decision whether to demand or waive the right to a jury belongs to the proposed conservatee’s attorney, despite the proposed conservatee’s objection.
  4. Regardless of the fact that a proposed conservatee suffers from mental illness or related disorders, those conditions preclude any categorical inference that the proposed conservatee is unable to make a decision regarding whether to demand or waive a jury trial.

In a LPS conservatorship the petitioner, not the proposed conservatee, has the burden of proving that the conservatorship should be granted. Here’s an interesting question: since in a LPS conservatorship an adjudication by a jury to grant the petition for conservatorship must be unanimous, in the situation where the proposed conservatee is objecting to or contesting the need for the conservatorship, would there be a strategic advantage for the proposed conservatee to demand a jury trial instead of proceeding before the single judge?

Next question, how, if at all, does the holding or reasoning in Kevin A. also impact or relate to general probate conservatorship proceedings under California Probate Code §§1800, et seq.? In summary, for the reasons discussed below, it appears that the reasoning in Kevin A. would similarly apply in general probate conservatorship cases and the proposed conservatee’s right to decide whether to proceed before a jury in those cases.

In a general probate conservatorship the proposed conservatee also has the right to demand a jury trial on the issue whether or not the conservatorship should be granted. Probate Code §1828(a)(6). Additionally, in a general probate conservatorship both the court investigator and the Court are required by statute to inform the proposed conservatee about a number of his or her legal rights, including, or example, his or her rights to object to the petition for conservatorship, and to decide whether or not to have a jury trial. See Probate Code §§1826 and 1828.

Both LPS and general probate conservatorships also follow the normal rules of civil procedure. Probate Code §§1000, 1827 and 2100; Welfare and Institutions Code §5350. In fact, although the LPS conservatorship statutory provisions are provided for under the California Welfare and Institutions Code (see W&I Code §§5000, et seq.), the Court in Kevin A. stated as follows, recognizing that the procedure for establishing a LPS conservatorship is also the procedure that is used for establishing a general probate conservatorship:

“Section 5350 provides, in relevant part, the “procedure for establishing, administering, and terminating a conservatorship under this chapter shall be the same as that provided in Division 4 (commencing with Section 1400) of the Probate Code ….” Probate Code section 1827 provides: “The court shall hear and determine the matter of the establishment of the conservatorship according to the law and procedure relating to the trial of civil actions, including trial by jury if demanded by the proposed conservatee.” Section 1828 of the Probate Code requires the court to “inform the proposed conservatee” of his or her “right to oppose the proceeding, to have the matter of the establishment of the conservatorship tried by jury, to be represented by legal counsel if the proposed conservatee so chooses, and to have legal counsel appointed by the court if unable to retain legal counsel.” (Prob. Code, § 1828, subd. (a)(6).) Thereafter, the court must “consult the proposed conservatee to determine the proposed conservatee’s opinion” regarding the “establishment of the conservatorship,” the “appointment of the proposed conservator” and any limitation to his or her legal capacities. (Prob. Code, § 1828, subd. (b)(1)-(3).)”

Similar to a LPS conservatorship, in a general probate conservatorship it is also the burden of the petitioner to prove that there is a need for a conservatorship, i.e., that the petition for conservatorship should be granted. Although the amount or degree of proof that is required to prove that a conservatorship should be granted is different in a LPS conservatorship than it is in a general probate conservatorship, beyond a reasonable doubt compared to clear and convincing evidence, respectively, and a LPS generally is probably thought of as being a more serious type of conservatorship, an argument can be made that a general probate conservatorship could be an equally or even more serious type of conservatorship because the LPS conservatorship lasts for one year, at which time it must be renewed, whereas the general probate conservatorship lasts until it is either modified by Court order or the conservatee dies. Additionally, in general probate conservatorships the conservator and the Court also are or might be making decisions relating to the conservatee’s personal freedoms and restrictions, placement including possible locked or restricted facilities, and medications.

Conservatorship cases are numerous in number and involve important rights, but relatively speaking there have been very few appellate-level court decisions involving conservatorships. And, although I don’t have the statistics, if the statistics even exist, there are very few jury trials in contested general probate conservatorships – jury trials are not encouraged although the proposed conservatee has that absolute right. Further, whereas there are Judicial Council jury instructions for LPS conservatorships (see CACI 4000-4013), jury instructions for general probate conservatorship jury trials are not provided, although you can find a sample jury instruction that I wrote at http://wp.me/p1wbl8-8Q

Having more jury trials in conservatorship proceedings is a mixed bag. We have been primarily discussing the rights of the proposed conservatee because in fact it is only those rights that are being variously protected or restricted in general probate conservatorship proceedings. But requiring or having more jury trials in contested general probate conservatorships to a certain extent does put more burden on the Court system – seating a jury and conducting a jury trial does take more time. And if they had a choice, the majority of the parties who find themselves petitioning for the establishment of a conservatorship logically might greatly prefer to not have to incur the additional time, expense, and uncertainty that a jury trial can cause. Some people might also argue that having to seat a jury in some or perhaps even in many conservatorship cases could be wasteful of resources or should be unnecessary where it might appear evident beforehand and even prior to trial that some form of assistance or conservatorship might be helpful or granted. Nevertheless, those arguments could be made in every case, whether civil, criminal or probate, where a party has a right to decide whether to proceed before a jury, and at law do those arguments overlook the proposed conservatee’s acknowledged legal and procedural protections and rights?

Following the reasoning in Kevin A. and viewing the proposed conservatee’s personal and procedural rights from a legal prospective, in a contested general probate conservatorship, unless the Court determines that there is substantial evidence that the proposed conservatee lacks the capacity to decide whether to proceed before a jury, the decision whether to have a jury trial rests with the proposed conservatee. And arguably in some cases it might be strategically advantageous for the proposed conservatee to demand a jury if the proposed conservatee could have a better chance of prevailing compared to when the adjudication is being made by the single judge.

And one last final question or issue: in both LPS and general probate conservatorships, has it been sufficiently explained to the proposed conservatee not only what the petition requests and that he or she has the right to agree to or to oppose the conservatorship, but also that he or she has the right to a jury trial and whether a jury trial could present advantages or disadvantages in that specific case?

Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco and throughout California

National Center on Elder Abuse, Discussing What Is Elder Abuse

A good discussion and link from the National Center on Elder Abuse, discussing what is elder abuse, Click Here for article.

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco)

Long-Term Insurance

Link to long-term insurance article, Click Here.  Enjoy.

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco)

Link – Interesting Read – Re the Will of George Washington

The following is a link to an interesting article about the Will of George Washington (with attachments of the actual will), Click Here.

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco)