Tag Archives: estate

I have consolidated blogs – future posts on this topic will be made at http://tateattorney.com – thank you. David Tate, Esq.

Posted on by

I have consolidated blogs – future posts on this topic will be made to http://tateattorney.com. Please click on http://tateattorney.com

* * * *

Thank you for viewing this discussion. Please do pass this blog and blog post and information to other people who would be interested as it is only through collaboration and sharing that great things and success are more quickly achieved. If you are interested in discussing anything that I have said in the discussion above or in either of my two blogs (see blog addresses below), or if you simply want to reach out or are seeking assistance, it is best to reach me by email at dave@tateattorney.com.

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

Trust, estate, probate, will, fiduciary and elder abuse disputes, litigation, trials and law – probate, trust, estate, will, power of attorney, elder abuse, real property and conservatorship disputes, conflicts and litigation, challenging and contentious administrations, and personalities, people and relationships, mental and physical health, limitations and capacity, undue influence and fraud; and and mediator services.

Business litigation and internal business and co-ownership disputes, litigation, trials and law, and contentious officer, director, board and audit and governance committee, D&O, conflict of interest, workplace, and governance disputes, conflicts and litigation; and mediator services. Legal authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, governance, diligence, compliance, legal risk management, and personalities, people and relationships; and mediator services.

Governance, law, legal risk management processes, compliance and success, audits and auditing, internal controls, executive officers, boards, directors, audit and governance committees, investigations, publicity rights, AI, defamation and First Amendment, legislation, statutes and laws, regulations, and headline news, and issue, people and relationship effective meetings, discussions and deliberations, debates and debating, communications, and wording and use of words.

Real property disputes, litigation, trials and law – primarily co-ownership and joint-ownership disputes, conflicts and litigation, and sales and purchases that go wrong, and mediator services.

Mediator and mediator and dispute resolution services (evaluative and facilitative).

  • 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.
  • Law and legal issues relating to authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, governance, diligence, compliance, risk management, disputes, evidence, liability, litigation, and mediation and resolution services.

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 does not mean that I do not or that I 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 a defense of a contested trust amendment trigger a no contest clause?

Posted on by

Can a defense of a contested trust amendment trigger a no contest clause? In Key v. Tyler the Court recently answered “yes” it may, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case (California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Case No. B322246 (Filed 5/28/24)).

In Key v. Tyler the Trustors (Thomas and Elizabeth) executed their original Trust in 1999. The trust contained a no-contest clause which in part stated as follows:

“. . . if any devisee, legatee or beneficiary under this Trust, or any legal heir of the Trustors or person claiming under any of them directly or indirectly (a) contests either Trustor’s Will, this Trust, or any other trust created by a Trustor, or in any manner attacks or seeks to impair or invalidate any of their provisions,. . . then in that event Trustors specifically disinherit each such person, and all such legacies, bequests, devises, and interest given under this Trust to that person shall be forfeited as though he or she had predeceased the Trustors without issue, and shall augment proportionately the shares of the Trust Estate passing under this Trust to, or in trust for, such of the Trustors’ devisees, legatees and beneficiaries who have not participated in such acts or proceedings.”

The Trustors had three children: Tyler, Key, and a third sister who was not involved in the litigation.

In 2003 the Trustors subsequently executed an Amendment to the Trust – the 2003 Amendment was a one-page document that made some dispositive changes but did not restate or entirely change the provisions in the 1999 Trust – thus, the 1999 Trust remained relevant and applicable except as changed by the provisions in the one-page 2003 Amendment. The 2003 Amendment did not contain a no contest clause.

Husband Thomas subsequently died in 2003, and surviving spouse Elizabeth purportedly executed another Amendment in 2007. Pursuant to the Court “Tyler used her influence over Elizabeth to obtain the 2007 Amendment.” Beneficiary Key filed an action and successfully invalidated the 2007 Amendment on the ground that Tyler unduly influenced their mother into executing the 2007 Amendment. Against Key’s action Tyler defended the 2007 Amendments which differed from some of the provisions in the original 1999 Trust. Tyler also was a beneficiary under the 1999 Trust but would have inherited differently under the 2007 Amendment if that Amendment had not been invalidated.

Key v. Tyler is a long 20+ page Opinion which contains many relevant discussions on legal issues. However, I am writing about the Opinion here because of the discussion relating to the no contest clause in the 1999 Trust and the consequences of the litigation pertaining to the 2007 Amendment.

The Court held that Tyler’s defense of the 2007 Amendment was a contest of the 1999 Trust, and that Tyler not only did not recover under the 2007 Amendment which the Court invalidated, but also disinherited herself from what she would have recovered under the original 1999 Trust or under the 2003 Amendment pursuant to the broadly worded no contest clause that was contained in the earlier original 1999 Trust. In other words, as a result of losing on the 2007 Amendment, and there being a broadly worded no contest clause in the original 1999 Trust, Tyler lost everything and recovered nothing.

Takeaway: careful consideration needs to be given to the existence of no contest clauses contained in any and all possibly relevant trust and estate disposition instruments and documents, and to the specific wording of each possibly applicable no contest clause, as even defending a later in time subsequent instrument also may in appropriate circumstances trigger a no contest clause in an earlier instrument.

The following is a case caption scan from the Opinion in Key v. Tyler: 

* * * *

Thank you for viewing this discussion. Please do pass this blog and blog post and information to other people who would be interested as it is only through collaboration and sharing that great things and success are more quickly achieved. If you are interested in discussing anything that I have said in the discussion above or in either of my two blogs (see blog addresses below), or if you simply want to reach out or are seeking assistance, it is best to reach me by email at dave@tateattorney.com.

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

Probate Court and administration related disputes and litigation – probate, trust, estate, will, power of attorney, elder abuse, real property and conservatorship disputes, conflicts and litigation, and challenging and contentious administrations, and personalities and relationships; and mediator services.

Business litigation and internal business and co-ownership disputes, and contentious officer, director, board and audit and governance committee, D&O, conflict of interest, workplace, and governance disputes, conflicts and litigation; and mediator services. Legal authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, governance, diligence, compliance, and risk Management.

Real property disputes and litigation – primarily co-ownership and joint-ownership disputes, conflicts and litigation, and sales and purchases that go wrong; and mediator services.

Mediator services and dispute resolution (evaluative and facilitative).

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.

Law and legal issues relating to authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, governance, diligence, compliance, risk management, disputes, liability, litigation, and mediation and resolution services.

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 does not mean that I do not or that I 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.

David W. Tate, Esq. – blog posts re the new California directed trust provisions

Posted on by

David W. Tate, Esq. – blog posts re the new California directed trust provisions.
From October 30, 2023 through February 27, 2024, I made several blog posts in which I
discussed the new California directed trust provisions. Below I have provided those posts in one
document for ease of reading, beginning with the first post on October 30, 2023, and ending with
the last two posts on February 27, 2024. There are a total of seven posts.
David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA) Email: dave@tateattorney.com
Note: I have joined the McDowall Cotter law firm (San Mateo, California) https://www.mcdlawyers.net/

My practice primarily includes the following:

Probate Court related disputes and litigation – probate, trust, estate, will, power of attorney, elder abuse, real property and conservatorship disputes, conflicts and litigation, and challenging and contentious administrations.

Business disputes and litigation – primarily breach of contract litigation, internal co-ownership disputes, and contentious officer, director, board committee, conflict of interest, workplace, and governance disputes, conflicts, and litigation.

Real property disputes and litigation – primarily co-ownership and joint-ownership disputes, conflicts and litigation, and sales and purchases that go wrong.

Mediator services.

The following are my seven, recent California directed trust posts:

david-w.-tate-esq.-e28093-blog-posts-re-the-new-california-directed-trust-provisions-05012024Download

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 does not mean that I do not or that I 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.

* * * * *

California probate case holds that free room and board are “remuneration” for the presumption of fraud or undue influence against a care custodian

Posted on by

By way of background, in relevant part California Probate Code sections 21380(a)(3) and (4) provide as follows (a full copy of section 21380 is provided at the end of this post):

“21380. Presumption of fraud or undue influence for certain enumerated transfers; burden of proof; costs and attorney’s fees

(a) A provision of an instrument making a donative transfer [e.g., such as a will, trust, transfer on death deed, etc.] to any of the following persons is presumed to be the product of fraud or undue influence:

* * * * *

(3) A care custodian of a transferor who is a dependent adult, but only if the instrument was executed during the period in which the care custodian provided services to the transferor, or within 90 days before or after that period.

(4) A care custodian who commenced a marriage, cohabitation, or domestic partnership with a transferor who is a dependent adult while providing services to that dependent adult, or within 90 days after those services were last provided to the dependent adult, if the donative transfer occurred, or the instrument was executed, less than six months after the marriage, cohabitation, or domestic partnership commenced.”

California Probate Code section 21362 defines the terms “Care custodian” and “health and social services” as follows:

“21362. “Care custodian” and “health and social services” defined

(a) “Care custodian” means a person who provides health or social services to a dependent adult, except that “care custodian” does not include a person who provided services without remuneration if the person had a personal relationship with the dependent adult (1) at least 90 days before providing those services, (2) at least six months before the dependent adult’s death, and (3) before the dependant adult was admitted to hospice care, if the dependent adult was admitted to hospice care. As used in this subdivision, “remuneration” does not include the donative transfer at issue under this chapter or the reimbursement of expenses.

(b) For the purposes of this section, “health and social services” means services provided to a dependent adult because of the person’s dependent condition, including, but not limited to, the administration of medicine, medical testing, wound care, assistance with hygiene, companionship, housekeeping, shopping, cooking, and assistance with finances.”

The recent case Robinson v. Gutierrez (December 26, 2023) 98 Cal. App. 5th 278 involved a situation in which the person who is alleged to have been a care custodian allegedly received free room and board for those services but received no direct payment or other other benefit. The Court was called upon in a case of first impression to determine whether free room and board in exchange for care services are “remuneration” for the purpose of Cal. Probate Code sections 21380 and 21362. The court held that “yes” they are.

The Court’s holding includes a many-page discussion about the legislative intent and also about the use of the word remuneration in other circumstances and in general. Thus, for example, as part of those discussions the Court stated:

“These definitions show that the terms “remuneration,” “pay,” and “compensation” can be interchangeable. As used in section 21362 “remuneration” refers to a form of compensation given in exchange for the provision of care services. The dictionary sources indicate that “remuneration” refers to compensation in the form of money or some other thing of equivalent value. Thus, on its face, the term includes compensation in the form of room and board or other noncash benefits in exchange for the provision of care services.”

Similarly, the Court also stated:

“But because “remuneration” as used in section 21362 can reasonably be read to encompass money, other types of benefits, or both, we turn to the statute’s legislative history and purposes to discern legislative intent. This review further convinces us that the Legislature in this instance intended that remuneration would include room and board given in exchange for care and social services.”

Why is Robinson v. Gutierrez important? The use of fraud and undue influence to obtain a person’s assets upon the person’s death are rampant. And these are challenging cases to bring because a primary witness, the decedent whose assets are at issue, is deceased. Burdens of proof and presumptions are very important in these cases. Further, although the Court in Robinson v. Gutierrez was presented with a free room and board situation, the Court discussed the meaning of the term “remuneration” more broadly in the context of Cal. Probate Code sections 21380 and 21362. Thus, depending on the specific facts and circumstances that are at issue, it might be arguable that any number and manner of other of circumstances other than free room and board might also constitute “remuneration.”

For your additional information, the following is the full copy of Cal. Probate Code section 21380 (and see also the entirety of Cal. Probate Code sections 21380-21392):

“21380. Presumption of fraud or undue influence for certain enumerated transfers; burden of proof; costs and attorney’s fees

(a) A provision of an instrument making a donative transfer to any of the following persons is presumed to be the product of fraud or undue influence:

(1) The person who drafted the instrument.

(2) A person who transcribed the instrument or caused it to be transcribed and who was in a fiduciary relationship with the transferor when the instrument was transcribed.

(3) A care custodian of a transferor who is a dependent adult, but only if the instrument was executed during the period in which the care custodian provided services to the transferor, or within 90 days before or after that period.

(4) A care custodian who commenced a marriage, cohabitation, or domestic partnership with a transferor who is a dependent adult while providing services to that dependent adult, or within 90 days after those services were last provided to the dependent adult, if the donative transfer occurred, or the instrument was executed, less than six months after the marriage, cohabitation, or domestic partnership commenced.

(5) A person who is related by blood or affinity, within the third degree, to any person described in paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive.

(6) A cohabitant or employee of any person described in paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive.

(7) A partner, shareholder, or employee of a law firm in which a person described in paragraph (1) or (2) has an ownership interest.

(b) The presumption created by this section is a presumption affecting the burden of proof. The presumption may be rebutted by proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the donative transfer was not the product of fraud or undue influence.

(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), with respect to a donative transfer to the person who drafted the donative instrument, or to a person who is related to, or associated with, the drafter as described in paragraph (5), (6), or (7) of subdivision (a), the presumption created by this section is conclusive.

(d) If a beneficiary is unsuccessful in rebutting the presumption, the beneficiary shall bear all costs of the proceeding, including reasonable attorney’s fees.”

* * * *

Thank you for viewing this discussion. Please do pass this blog and blog post and information to other people who would be interested as it is only through collaboration and sharing that great things and success are more quickly achieved. If you are interested in discussing anything that I have said in the discussion above or in either of my two blogs (see blog addresses below), or if you simply want to reach out or are seeking assistance, it is best to reach me by email at dave@tateattorney.com.

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 (evaluative and facilitative):
    • 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 does not mean that I do not or that I 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, Facebook 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.

If Your Estate Or Trust Holds Difficult To Value Assets – Get Your Valuation Experts In Order (Slide)

Posted on by

View the above jpg, or click on the below link for a more clear view.

david-w.-tate-esq.-if-your-estate-or-trust-holds-difficult-to-value-assets-get-your-valuation-experts-in-order-1Download

Best to you. David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

——————————————————————–

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.

Thank you for reading this post. I ask that you also pass it along to other people who would be interested as it is through collaboration that great things and success occur more quickly. And please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My two blogs are:

Business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

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

Best to you, David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing in California only

Litigation, Disputes, Mediator & Governance: Business, Trust/Probate, Real Property, Governance, Elder Abuse, Workplace, Investigations, Other Areas

 

Buskirk v. Buskirk (August 14, 2020) 53 Cal. App. 5th 523 – holding that personal jurisdiction rules are the same for trust proceedings as they are for civil proceedings – i.e., California’s jurisdictional reach is long

Posted on by

The following is a summary of Buskirk v. Buskirk which is a recent and important case that discussed the reach of California’s jurisdiction in trust/probate court cases.

Buskirk v. Buskirk (August 14, 2020) 53 Cal. App. 5th 523 – holding that personal jurisdiction rules are the same for trust proceedings as they are for civil proceedings – i.e., California’s jurisdictional reach is long, personal jurisdiction depends on the connections that the defendant, and/or the facts, and/or the assets that are at issue, had or have with California

Buskirk affirms the view of personal jurisdiction that I have followed in probate court cases – i.e., that California’s jurisdictional reach is long, but, of course, it is not unlimited. Broadly viewed, the approach is: (1) was or is the defendant located in California, or (2) to what extent did the relevant facts or actions occur in California, or (3) to what extent were or are the assets that are at issue located in California? In Buskirk for example, the court held that California does have jurisdiction over the settlor/trustee although she used to be but now no longer was located in California. The court evaluated the history of the settlor/trustee’s actions in California, the relevant facts and actions that had occurred in California, and the extent that the assets that were at issue were located in California.

The opinion in Buskirk also is helpful because it is fairly long and detailed as to the various different facts that were involved and that the Court considered. There are a lot of facts in Buskirk that are also present or that could also be present in a typical California probate court case. Below you will find a summary of the opinion including some quotes from the court.

“As a matter of state law, personal jurisdiction rules are the same for civil and trust proceedings. [See Prob. Code § 17004 . . . .]”

California courts may exercise jurisdiction to determine matters concerning trust property located in California—particularly land—even if the trust is administered elsewhere.

California courts may exercise jurisdiction on any basis consistent with the state or federal Constitutions. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10.

Court focuses on the defendants’ relationship to the forum state when assessing personal jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction is proper if a defendant has minimum contacts with the state such that the lawsuit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Personal jurisdiction can be all-purpose (also called “general”) or case-linked (also called “specific”).

With case-linked jurisdiction, the court may adjudicate only those disputes relating to defendants’ contacts with the forum.

Case-linked jurisdiction is proper when: (1) defendants have purposefully availed themselves of forum benefits; (2) the controversy relates to the defendants’ contacts with the forum; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice.

When considering purposeful availment prong of case-linked jurisdiction test, court considers whether the defendants’ conduct connects them to the forum in a meaningful way.

Defendants purposefully avail themselves of a forum’s benefits, such that case-linked jurisdiction is proper, if they intentionally direct their activities at a forum such that, by virtue of the benefit the defendants receive, they should reasonably expect to be subject to jurisdiction there.

A defendant need not physically enter California at all to be subject to personal jurisdiction in California.

“A defendant need not physically enter California at all to be subject to personal jurisdiction here. (Halyard Health, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 1062, 1075, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 915.) Nor can the mother undo her lifelong California contacts by moving to a new state. No matter where they now live, Respondents’ activities have involved a trust that was created and managed in California, that is governed by California law, and that continues to hold interests in California real property. Respondents have purposefully availed themselves of the California forum.”

“Next we tackle the second prong about “relatedness”: whether the son’s claims relate to Respondents’ contacts with California. We look for a substantial connection between Respondents’ forum activities and the son’s claims. (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 452, 456, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 899, 926 P.2d 1085.)”

“To defeat exercise of case-linked jurisdiction on fairness grounds, the defendant must present a compelling case that exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable.”

“Venue is separate from personal jurisdiction. Witkin Library Reference: 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Jurisdiction, § 158 [Ownership, Possession, or Use of Property.]”

“Among other findings, the trial court specifically found most of the Trust properties currently are in Idaho, the son is no longer a Trust beneficiary, and the mother has moved to Idaho. We accept those factual findings and do not question them.”

“Mother intentionally connected with California for her own benefit, such that connection satisfied purposeful availment prong of case-linked jurisdiction over mother in son’s action for accounting of family real estate trust, where mother was lifelong California resident, created trust with her husband in California and chose California law to govern trust, trust held interests in California real estate, mother had filed four lawsuits in California involving trust property, and, since leaving California, mother had engaged in transactions aimed at extinguishing the trust’s interests in the California real estate.”

“Daughters’ connections with California satisfied purposeful availment prong of case-linked jurisdiction in son’s action for accounting of family real estate trust, where daughters were successor beneficiaries and successor trustees of the trust, which originated in California, was governed by California law, and held interest in California real estate, daughters participated in trust transactions, and daughters physically came to California to get their mother, who was trustor, and to move her to Idaho, which triggered the trust changes at issue.”

“Uncle’s connections with California satisfied purposeful availment prong of case-linked jurisdiction in son’s action for accounting of family real estate trust, where uncle had role in managing trust, which originated in California, was governed by California law, and held interest in California real estate, uncle also participated in the trust’s real estate transactions, and uncle assisted in moving trustor mother from California to Idaho, which was event that changed trust’s operation.”

“Son’s claims for accounting of family real estate trust and for removal of trustees related to mother’s, uncle’s, and daughters’ contacts with California, as required for court to assert case-specific jurisdiction over them; mother, uncle, and daughter were connected to California through the trust, which was the topic of the son’s suit, suit asserted that they harmed son and the trust by engaging in below-market California land deals and that mother created an impermissible conflict of interest, son claimed the transactions rendered them unfit to serve as trustees, and son sought appointment of professional fiduciary as trustee and claimed he had been refused an accounting.”

“Exercise of case-linked jurisdiction over mother, uncle, and daughters was fair in son’s action for accounting of family real estate trust; son was resident of California, mother previously had chosen to litigate in California regarding trust, daughters or their agents came to California to move mother to Idaho, uncle was successor trustee and managed its affairs for mother, who had lived in California for 89 years, and while mother was elderly and one daughter had cancer, court would make reasonable accommodations.”

* * * * *

———————————————————————-

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.

Thank you for reading this post. I ask that you also pass it along to other people who would be interested as it is through collaboration that great things and success occur more quickly. And please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

Best to you, David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing in California only

Litigation, Disputes, Mediator & Governance: Business, Trust/Probate, Real Property, Governance, Elder Abuse, Investigations, Other Areas

Blogs:

Trust, estate/probate, power of attorney, conservatorship, elder and dependent adult abuse, nursing home and care, disability, discrimination, personal injury, responsibilities and rights, and other related litigation, and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

Business, D&O, board, director, audit committee, shareholder, founder, owner, and investor litigation, governance and governance committee, responsibilities and rights, compliance, investigations, and risk management  http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

My law practice primarily involves the following areas and issues:

Trust, Estate, Probate Court, Elder and Dependent Adult, and Disability Disputes and Litigation

  • Trust and estate disputes and litigation, and contentious administrations representing fiduciaries, beneficiaries and families; elder abuse; power of attorney disputes; elder care and nursing home abuse; conservatorships; claims to real and personal property; and other related disputes and litigation.

Business, Business-Related, and Workplace Disputes and Litigation: Private, Closely Held, and Family Businesses; Public Companies; Nonprofit Entities; and Governmental Entities

  • Business v. business disputes including breach of contract; unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices; fraud, deceit and misrepresentation; unfair competition; licensing agreements, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; etc.
  • Misappropriation of trade secrets.
  • M&A disputes.
  • Founder, officer, director and board, investor, shareholder, creditor, VC, control, governance, decision making, fiduciary duty, conflict of interest, independence, voting, etc., disputes.
  • Buy-sell disputes.
  • Funding and share dilution disputes.
  • Accounting, lost profits, and royalty disputes and damages.
  • Insurance coverage and bad faith.
  • Access to corporate and business records disputes.
  • Employee, employer and workplace disputes and processes, discrimination, whistleblower and retaliation, harassment, defamation, etc.

Investigations, Governance, and Responsibilities and Rights

  • Corporate, business, nonprofit and governmental internal investigations.
  • Board, audit committee, governance committee, and special committee governance and processes, disputes, conflicts of interest, independence, culture, ethics, etc.; and advising audit committees, governance committees, officers, directors, and boards.

Mediator Services and Conflict Resolution

* * * * *

 

Video – Dave Tate, Esq. Mediator Qualifications and Experience Introduction – California

Posted on by

Greetings to all of my friends, colleagues, and connections, and other people who are interested – below is a short video discussing my mediator qualifications and experience – please contact me if I can help you settle your case or dispute. Best to you, Dave Tate

———————————————————————-

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.

Thank you for reading this post. I ask that you also pass it along to other people who would be interested as it is through collaboration that great things and success occur more quickly. And please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

Best to you, David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing in California only

Litigation, Disputes & Mediator: Business, Trust/Probate, Real Property, Governance, Elder Abuse, Investigations, Other Areas

Blogs:

Trust, estate/probate, power of attorney, conservatorship, elder and dependent adult abuse, nursing home and care, disability, discrimination, personal injury, responsibilities and rights, and other related litigation, and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

Business, D&O, board, director, audit committee, shareholder, founder, owner, and investor litigation, governance and governance committee, responsibilities and rights, compliance, investigations, and risk management  http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

My law practice primarily involves the following areas and issues:

Trust, Estate, Probate Court, Elder and Dependent Adult, and Disability Disputes and Litigation

      • Trust and estate disputes and litigation, and contentious administrations representing fiduciaries, beneficiaries and families; elder abuse; power of attorney disputes; elder care and nursing home abuse; conservatorships; claims to real and personal property; and other related disputes and litigation.

Business, Business-Related, and Workplace Disputes and Litigation: Private, Closely Held, and Family Businesses; Public Companies; Nonprofit Entities; and Governmental Entities

      • Business v. business disputes including breach of contract; unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices; fraud, deceit and misrepresentation; unfair competition; licensing agreements, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; etc.
      • Misappropriation of trade secrets.
      • M&A disputes.
      • Founder, officer, director and board, investor, shareholder, creditor, VC, control, governance, decision making, fiduciary duty, conflict of interest, independence, voting, etc., disputes.
      • Buy-sell disputes.
      • Funding and share dilution disputes.
      • Accounting, lost profits, and royalty disputes and damages.
      • Insurance coverage and bad faith.
      • Access to corporate and business records disputes.
      • Employee, employer and workplace disputes and processes, discrimination, whistleblower and retaliation, harassment, defamation, etc.

Investigations, Governance, and Responsibilities and Rights

      • Corporate, business, nonprofit and governmental internal investigations.
      • Board, audit committee, governance committee, and special committee governance and processes, disputes, conflicts of interest, independence, culture, ethics, etc.; and advising audit committees, governance committees, officers, directors, and boards.

Mediator Services and Conflict Resolution

* * * * *

Who Can File A Petition Relating To A Power Of Attorney – Almost Anyone, Including Any Interested Person Or Friend

Posted on by

If you have a question or dispute about how a power of attorney operates, or how it should be or is being used, the California Probate Code allows almost anyone to file a petition with the Court for instructions or other remedies. See the provisions of Probate Code Sections 4540 and 4541 below.

Also note, there are powers of attorney for financial and asset management, and powers of attorney for health care and daily living – although some of the provisions are similar, there are important differences. And, perhaps outside of common knowledge, it is not always clear when, for how long, and for what decision making a person can become and becomes an attorney in fact, what decisions can be made, what decisions are legally prudent, and what people and resources, including the principal, might be or in circumstances should be or must be consulted about the matter at hand and possible options for decision making. 

California Probate Code Section 4540 provides as follows:

Subject to Section 4503, a petition may be filed under this part by any of the following persons:

(a) The attorney-in-fact.

(b) The principal.

(c) The spouse of the principal.

(d) A relative of the principal.

(e) The conservator of the person or estate of the principal.

(f) The court investigator, described in Section 1454, of the county where the power of attorney was executed or where the principal resides.

(g) The public guardian of the county where the power of attorney was executed or where the principal resides.

(h) The personal representative or trustee of the principal’s estate.

(i) The principal’s successor in interest.

(j) A person who is requested in writing by an attorney-in-fact to take action.

(k) Any other interested person or friend of the principal.

California Probate Code Section 4541 provides as follows:

A petition may be filed under this part for any one or more of the following purposes:

(a) Determining whether the power of attorney is in effect or has terminated.

(b) Passing on the acts or proposed acts of the attorney-in-fact, including approval of authority to disobey the principal’s instructions pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 4234.

(c) Compelling the attorney-in-fact to submit the attorney-in-fact’s accounts or report the attorney-in-fact’s acts as attorney-in-fact to the principal, the spouse of the principal, the conservator of the person or the estate of the principal, or to any other person required by the court in its discretion, if the attorney-in-fact has failed to submit an accounting or report within 60 days after written request from the person filing the petition.

(d) Declaring that the authority of the attorney-in-fact is revoked on a determination by the court of all of the following:

(1) The attorney-in-fact has violated or is unfit to perform the fiduciary duties under the power of attorney.

(2) At the time of the determination by the court, the principal lacks the capacity to give or to revoke a power of attorney.

(3) The revocation of the attorney-in-fact’s authority is in the best interest of the principal or the principal’s estate.

(e) Approving the resignation of the attorney-in-fact:

(1) If the attorney-in-fact is subject to a duty to act under Section 4230, the court may approve the resignation, subject to any orders the court determines are necessary to protect the principal’s interests.

(2) If the attorney-in-fact is not subject to a duty to act under Section 4230, the court shall approve the resignation, subject to the court’s discretion to require the attorney-in-fact to give notice to other interested persons.

(f) Compelling a third person to honor the authority of an attorney-in-fact.

—————————————————————

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.

Thank you for reading this post. I ask that you also pass it along to other people who would be interested as it is through collaboration that great things and success occur more quickly. And please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

Best to you, David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing in California only.

I am also the Chair of the Business Law Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco.

Blogs: Trust, estate/probate, power of attorney, conservatorship, elder and dependent adult abuse, nursing home and care, disability, discrimination, personal injury, responsibilities and rights, and other related litigation, and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com; Business, D&O, board, director, audit committee, shareholder, founder, owner, and investor litigation, governance, responsibilities and rights, compliance, investigations, and risk management  http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

My law practice primarily involves the following areas and issues:

Probate Court Disputes and Litigation

  • Trust and estate disputes and litigation, and contentious administrations representing fiduciaries and beneficiaries; elder abuse; power of attorney disputes; elder care and nursing home abuse; conservatorships; claims to real and personal property; and other related disputes and litigation.

Business and Business-Related Disputes and Litigation: Private, Closely Held, and Family Businesses; Public Companies; and Nonprofit Entities

  • Business v. business disputes including breach of contract; unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices; fraud, deceit and misrepresentation; unfair competition; breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; etc.
  • Misappropriation of trade secrets
  • M&A disputes
  • Founder, officer, director and board, investor, shareholder, creditor, VC, control, governance, decision making, fiduciary duty, conflict of interest, voting, etc., disputes
  • Buy-sell disputes
  • Funding and share dilution disputes
  • Accounting, lost profits, and royalty disputes
  • Access to corporate and business records disputes
  • Employee, employer and workplace disputes, discrimination, whistleblower and retaliation, harassment, defamation, etc.

Investigations and Governance

  • Corporate and business internal investigations
  • Board, audit committee and special committee governance and processes, disputes, conflicts of interest, independence, etc.

* * * * *

New California Case, Levin v. Winston-Levin: Probate Code §859 Undue Influence Also Requires A Finding Of Bad Faith, And Depending On The Circumstances A Finding Of Undue Influence Could Invalidate The Entire Document, Or Only A Part Thereof

Posted on by

In Levin v. Winston-Levin (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Case No. G056353, filed September 13, 2019), the court made two noteworthy holdings:

1.  To recover double damages under the Cal. Probate Code §859 prong pertaining to undue influence, in addition to a finding of undue influence there must also be a finding that the undue influence was in bad faith. While one might presume that undue influence is in bad faith, as the court noted, Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code §15610.70 which defines undue influence as excessive persuasion that causes another person to act or refrain from acting by overcoming that person’s free will and results in inequity, directs a court to consider four primary factors which are then further broken down: the vulnerability of the victim, the influencer’s apparent authority, the actions or tactics used by the influencer, and the equity of the results – thus, it is entirely possible that a court might find that there was undue influence but no bad faith by the influencer.

I also note that there are very few appellate decisions pertaining to Cal. Probate Code §850, et al., which is surprising in light of the somewhat frequency that §850 is pleaded. It is my view that §850, §859, and the other sections relating thereto, are not particularly well drafted which can lead to confusion about applicability in situations that are on the fringe.

2.  It is the general rule that if the whole document (in this case a will) is the result of the presence of undue influence, the will is totally invalidated, but that if only a part of the will was procured by undue influence, that part may be rejected as void, but the remainder which is the outcome of the testator’s free will remains valid if it is not inconsistent with and can be separated from the part that is invalid. In Levin the court also compared the result if the entire will was invalidated or with the result if only a part of the will was invalidated, and compared those results with what was established about the decedent’s overall historical estate planning wishes and intentions.

—————————————————————

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.

Thank you for reading this website. I ask that you also pass it along to other people who would be interested as it is through collaboration that great things and success occur more quickly.

Best to you, David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing in California only.

I am also the Chair of the Business Law Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco.

Blogs: Trust, estate/probate, power of attorney, conservatorship, elder and dependent adult abuse, nursing home and care, disability, discrimination, personal injury, responsibilities and rights, and other related litigation, and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com; Business, D&O, board, director, audit committee, shareholder, founder, owner, and investor litigation, governance, responsibilities and rights, compliance, investigations, and risk management  http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

 

New California case upholds the substantial benefit doctrine for payment and recovery of attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees from the entire trust and the shares of all of the beneficiaries

Posted on by

In Smith v. Szeyller (Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, B281758, January 16, 2019), the court held that the probate court’s award approving payment of attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees from the trust to the beneficiary who challenged the trustees’ accounting and management of the trust was appropriate under the substantial benefit doctrine. The beneficiary who challenged the trustees’ accounting and management of the trust prevailed, thus benefiting the trust and all beneficiaries of the trust although only the one beneficiary challenged the accounting and management. As the trust and all of its beneficiaries benefited from the successful challenge, it was appropriate that the attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees be paid and reimbursed from the assets of the entire trust and the shares of each of the beneficiaries thereof.

Note: I used this doctrine after a successful week-long trial in one of my cases.

Thanks for reading this post. If you have found value in this post, I ask that you also pass it along to other people who would be interested as it is through collaboration that great things and success occur more quickly. And please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

Every trust situation is different. You do need to consult with professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for 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.

Best to you, David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing in California only

Blogs: California trust, estate, and elder abuse litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com; D&O, audit committee, governance and risk management http://auditcommitteeupdate.com