Tag Archives: elder abuse

Trustee and Beneficiary Responsibilities and Rights – Discussion Paper

Posted on by

If you are a trustee you need to know your responsibilities, and if you are a beneficiary you should know your rights. The following is a summary paper discussing both the responsibilities and the rights. Of course the California Probate Code is considerably longer and more detailed than the points discussed in this paper, there are also case law interpretations, and every case and situation is unique, but the paper will give you good insight. Click on the following link for the paper and discussion, A Summary of California Trustee and Beneficiary Responsibilities and Rights Dave Tate Esq 01052016.

Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco

What Is A California Conservatorship – An Overview

Posted on by

I was initially going to make this discussion as a video, and I still might; however, the video obviously takes more time. Below is the discussion about California conservatorships – specifically, what is a California conservatorship, an overview.

First – a reminder and an obligatory disclaimer – this discussion is only a summary of a complicated topic. You need to consult with an attorney about your situation. You cannot rely on this discussion for your situation. And this is not a solicitation for services inside or outside of California, I only represent clients in California, I don’t know anything about your situation or case, and you have not hired me for your situation or case.

Now, that having been said, the following is an overview discussion about California conservatorships.

A conservatorship is a court proceeding where the court legally appoints someone to make and manage personal, medical, daily living, residential placement, or financial matters and decisions for another person.

The person whose rights are being taken away or limited is called the conservatee. The person who is being appointed to manage matters and make decisions for the conservatee is called the conservator.

A conservatorship is a serious legal proceeding because the court, which is a state governmental entity, is being petitioned to take away or limit some of the prospective conservatee’s freedoms and personal and constitutional rights.

The conservatee has the right to fight or oppose the conservatorship, who might be appointed, and the powers of the conservator. And a prospective conservatee has the right to a jury trial.

You might ask, when is a conservatorship needed? Typically a conservatorship might be needed when a person can no longer make and manage the personal, medical or financial matters and decisions for herself or himself, and she or he hasn’t legally appointed someone else to handle those matters and decisions.

So, for example, a conservatorship might be needed if there are no, or insufficient, power of attorney and trust documents, and the person no longer has the mental capacity to execute those documents or refuses to do so.

On the other hand, a conservatorship should not be granted if there is a less restrictive way to provide the help or assistance that is needed, and if the court grants the petition for conservatorship, the court can order only the least restrictive terms, conditions and limitations that are necessary under the circumstances.

The person who is petitioning for conservatorship has the burden of producing sufficient admissible evidence to establish that the court should grant the conservatorship. Conservatorship proceedings can be very contentious.

If a conservatorship is granted, the case remains with the court for future review of the actions taken or not taken by the conservator, accountings if the conservatorship is of the estate, and whether the conservatorship is still needed.

Often a conservator is required to make very important and serious decisions. The conservatee and other people can oppose or object to what the conservator is going to do or has done. Sometimes the case will go back to court for the court to make decisions or orders.

The conservator needs to be represented by an attorney. The conservatee will be represented by an attorney if the conservatee requests one. And in conservatorship disputes it is common for other family members or friends to also be represented by legal counsel.

Recent California conservatorship court decisions have dealt with conservatee’s rights including the right to a jury trial, and in a very recent case the appellate court overruled the trial court, holding that the conservatorship should not have been granted because a friend had instead offered to provide the help and assistance that the prospective conservatee needed.

I have already explained that a prospective conservatee has the right to oppose the conservatorship, and to a jury trial.

You should also be aware that if the conservatorship is granted, the conservatee might also continue to disagree with decisions and actions that are being made or taken.

And I have also seen situations where the preexisting relationship between the conservatee and the conservator was forever damaged, and situations where the prospective conservatee, or the actual conservatee if the conservatorship was granted, then sought to disinherit the person who petitioned for conservatorship or who was appointed by the court to serving as the conservator.

There are many provisions in the California Probate Code that discuss conservatorship proceedings and duties and rights. There are too many provisions to cover in these materials. However, generally you can look at Probate Code sections 1400 through 3212. Other Probate Code sections are also applicable.

In addition to the conservatee’s rights, I also find particularly interesting and important the provisions that relate to conservator duties and decision making, including how the conservator should go about making decisions and what to consider, possibly including the wishes of the conservatee.

You can find additional information on my blogs at http://californiaestatetrust.com and http://auditcommitteeupdate.com, and you can call me at (415) 917-4030. That’s all for now. Thanks for reading.

Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco and California

New California Case – Gregge v. Hugill – Probate Code Section 17200 Petition Improperly Dismissed, And Policy Favors Trials And Determinations On The Issues And The Claims Alleged

Posted on by

On July 14, 2016, the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District issued its decision in Gregge v. Hugill, Case No. HO40663. Viewed most simply, the Court determined that Appellant had standing to bring his petition under California Probate Code section 17200 in which he alleged lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence and elder abuse, and that Probate Code section 17202 and another beneficiary’s disclaimer did not operate to defeat or eliminate Appellant’s pecuniary interest and standing to bring his petition and for trial thereon.

But viewed in its entirety, the decision in Gregge v. Hugill affirms policies that favor a party’s entitlement to a determination on the issues and the claims alleged, arguably disfavors claim forfeiture arguments, and affirms that estate planning document, i.e., will and trust, and inheritance contest determinations and findings should be based on the decedent’s intent.

The following are six snapshots from the opinion in Gregge v. Hugill which will provide you with some of the Court’s insight (the first snapshot is only of the case caption).

Gregge v. Hugill image 1 of 6

 

Gregge v. Hugill image 2 of 6

Gregge v. Hugill image 3 of 6

Gregge v. Hugill image 4 of 6

Gregge v. Hugill image 5 of 6

Gregge v. Hugill image 6 of 6

 

DoJ – Guilty Plea for Call Center Fraud of the Elderly – Partially Operated in the US

Posted on by

This stuff goes on all the time – probably because it can be so easy to make phone calls. The following is a link to the US Department of Justice news release about a call center operation to defraud the elderly, partially operated in the US. It’s very difficult to stop phone calls. The efforts to prevent this type of abuse must start at home with good-intentioned family and friends. Here’s the link to the DoJ news release, CLICK HERE. You can contact me if you need legal action to stop or remedy elder abuse, (415) 917-4030. Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco and throughout northern and southern California.

DoJ - Call Center Fraud of the Elderly

Video – Counties Need To Refer Elder Abuse Cases To Private Attorneys – World Elder Abuse Awareness Day

Posted on by

Conservatorship Should Not Have Been Granted Where “Friend” Offered To Provide Help – Conservatorship of Jesse G.

Posted on by

I have attached below a pdf of this new California Appellate Court decision in which the Appellate Court overruled a trial court order granting a LPS conservatorship. I have attached the pdf of the entire decision because the decision is lengthy in its discussion of the facts, and only by reading the decision will you get a feel for how difficult it might be to establish that a conservatorship should be granted. And you should read other prior blog posts by me discussing conservatorship issues, including the rights of the prospective conservatee. Also note in my prior posts the crossover that there can be between the legal authorities that relate to LPS conservatorships and general probate court conservatorships. Thus, although Conservatorship of Jesse G. is a LPS conservatorship, the reasoning of the Court, and some or perhaps even most of the legal authorities cited, might also equally apply in a general probate court conservatorship proceeding.

As you read the decision in Conservatorship of Jesse G., note the facts that could arguably suggest that the prospective conservatee might need help, and arguably that the conservatorship could be granted. The Appellate Court (similar to the trial court) also notes that the case is a close call. Also note that it isn’t certain that the help or assistance that the friend offered to provide to the prospective conservatee will be sufficient, or that it will be lasting over time. And yet, the Appellate Court concludes that under the circumstances of the case, the granting of the conservatorship was not legally justified. And some of the reasons why the Court reached that decision have to do with the burden of proof that is required, and that preference to less restrictive measures must be given.

Here is a link to a pdf of the decision Conservatorship of Jesse G. – discussing evidence that a LPS conservatorship should not have been granted

Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco Bay Area and throughout California.

Loss for Someone with Dementia

Posted on by

The following is a link to a post from Stephanie Peters’ blog titled “Loss for Someone with Dementia.” It is good for me to step back from the day-to-day legal involvement and reflect on the human aspects. And I note Stephanie’s comments about talking, or not, to someone with dementia about the loss of a spouse or other loved one. Here’s the link to Stephanie’s post, CLICK HERE.

Loss for Someone with Dementia

Is This Undue Influence – It Could Be – You Decide

Posted on by

I was reading an article recently. It in part described a situation where one of Dad’s adult children said that Dad could not see his granddaughter anymore because the son was upset with Dad’s estate plan, but that Dad could see his granddaughter if he made some changes to the plan.

Undue influence is described in several different ways, including by statute and by case law. When are statements or discussions merely opinions, or influence, or persuasion, or even argument or disagreement, but not “undue” influence in nature? It’s not always easy to tell; but on other occasions it is obvious. You judge the above scenario using the below definition of undue influence. It sounds like undue influence, and quite possibly also elder abuse, if it meets the below criteria.

The following information is copied from my elder abuse presentation slides.

California Welfare & Institutions Code §15610.70 provides the following statutory definition of undue influence:

(a) “Undue influence” means excessive persuasion that causes another person to act or refrain from acting by overcoming that person’s free will and results in inequity. In determining whether a result was produced by undue influence, all of the following shall be considered:

(1) The vulnerability of the victim. Evidence of vulnerability may include, but is not limited to, incapacity, illness, disability, injury, age, education, impaired cognitive function, emotional distress, isolation, or dependency, and whether the influencer knew or should have known of the alleged victim’s vulnerability.

(2) The influencer’s apparent authority. Evidence of apparent authority may include, but is not limited to, status as a fiduciary, family member, care provider, health care professional, legal professional, spiritual adviser, expert, or other qualification.

(3) The actions or tactics used by the influencer. Evidence of actions or tactics used may include, but is not limited to, all of the following: (A) Controlling necessaries of life, medication, the victim’s interactions with others, access to information, or sleep. (B) Use of affection, intimidation, or coercion. (C) Initiation of changes in personal or property rights, use of haste or secrecy in effecting those changes, effecting changes at inappropriate times and places, and claims of expertise in effecting changes.

(4) The equity of the result. Evidence of the equity of the result may include, but is not limited to, the economic consequences to the victim, any divergence from the victim’s prior intent or course of conduct or dealing, the relationship of the value conveyed to the value of any services or consideration received, or the appropriateness of the change in light of the length and nature of the relationship.

(b) Evidence of an inequitable result, without more, is not sufficient to prove undue influence.

 

I’m Getting Back To Using Video – A Video About My Practice Areas

Posted on by

Greetings all. I am getting back to using video more often, and another new initiative which I will be telling you about shortly. Moving forward I am trying to do one video a week, and then the other posts will be in writing.  I have done a quick video about my practice areas. Enjoy and tell others. Thanks. Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco / California, (415) 917-4030.

Why Are There Some San Mateo County Nursing Homes That Don’t Make Music Available For Therapy – What About In Your Area?

Posted on by

I have heard that it can be difficult, perhaps impossible, to get nursing homes to make music available for their residents. I can surmise why that is so. It’s because making music available, even for therapy treatment, is an additional task that nursing homes don’t want to undertake.

But you say: “It has been shown that music therapy offers a bright new dementia treatment for some nursing home residents with dementia.” And some foundations or third-party providers make the equipment available for free use. So what gives? Music therapy can make the elder resident’s days more pleasant, and could even reduce the need for medications.

If music was a drug, it would be given. But giving a drug doesn’t take as much time or staff effort. Sort of sounds like inadequate staffing, and failure to satisfy legal responsibilities to care for the resident and improve the resident’s life and condition.