Discussions About Powers of Attorney – Responsibilities and Rights (Part 1)

I am writing a couple of posts discussing powers of attorney under the California Probate Code. One of my current cases involves responsibilities and rights under financial and healthcare powers of attorney. A prior case in litigation involved whether or not to disconnect mom from medical equipment that was believed to be keeping her alive. Some of the discussion in these posts will be from a talk that I presented for the Professional Fiduciary Association of California.

Responsibilities and rights under a power of attorney are determined by the wording of the power of attorney itself, statutes, case law, and the facts and circumstances of the situation. These can be complicated issues. Although the wording of the power of attorney is extremely important, and that wording should be where the determination of responsibilities and rights starts, as you will see in these posts, the wording of the power of attorney does not give the complete answer. There are lengthy chapters and books written on these topics – in this and a couple of following posts I will be discussing some of the statutory provisions that govern responsibilities and rights under powers of attorneys under the California Probate Code.

Under the California Probate Code powers of attorney are discussed at Probate Code §§4000-4545.

Thus, for example, California Probate Code §§4050 and 4051 provide as follows:

Probate Section 4050:

(a) This division applies to the following:

(1) Durable powers of attorney, other than powers of attorney for health care governed by Division 4.7 (commencing with Section 4600).

(2) Statutory form powers of attorney under Part 3 (commencing with Section 4400).

(3) Any other power of attorney that incorporates or refers to this division or the provisions of this division.

(b) This division does not apply to the following:

(1) A power of attorney to the extent that the authority of the attorney-in-fact is coupled with an interest in the subject of the power of attorney.

(2) Reciprocal or interinsurance exchanges and their contracts, subscribers, attorneys-in-fact, agents, and representatives.

(3) A proxy given by an attorney-in-fact to another person to exercise voting rights.

(c) This division is not intended to affect the validity of any instrument or arrangement that is not described in subdivision (a).

Probate Section 4051:

Except where this division provides a specific rule, the general law of agency, including Article 2 (commencing with Section 2019) of Chapter 2 of Title 6 of, and Title 9 (commencing with Section 2295) of, Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, applies to powers of attorney.

In relevant part, California Civil Code Sections 2019, 2020 and 2022 provide:

Civil Code Section 2019 – an agent must not exceed the limits of his actual authority.

Civil Code Section 2020 – an agent must use ordinary diligence and keep his or her principal informed of his or her acts.

Civil Code Section 2022 – a mere agent of an agent is not responsible as such to the principal of the latter.

Thus, whereas the power of attorney might appear to say or suggest that the attorney-in-fact has absolute authority at least in the circumstances that are listed, you can see that, nevertheless, the attorney-in-fact cannot exceed his or her actual authority, he or she has to use at least ordinary diligence unless the power of attorney states otherwise, and the attorney-in-fact must keep his or her principal informed of his or her acts. And these are themes and requirements that run throughout the statutes that more specifically discuss responsibilities and rights, and that will be discussed in future posts.

Every case and situation is different. 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 new 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

 

OVERVIEW OF A RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS THAT YOU CAN USE 03162018

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

COSO Enterprise Risk Management Framework ERM Components and Principles

* * * * *

 

New California case – California lacks personal jurisdiction over a Utah resident on a cross-complaint against her individually as a third party for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, although the real property was located in California, and the Utah resident was appointed guardian ad litem for her mother in California

Keri Jensen v. Trine Jensen (Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, B2896111, January 24, 2019), is very fact specific, so its value is mostly in the court’s legal evaluation as applied to this specific case. Frankly, I am a bit surprised by the court’s holding. Daughter Trine came to California and moved her mother back to Utah to stay with Trine. Trine was also appointed as guardian ad litem for her mother in California. Mother sued other daughter Keri in California relating to a parcel of real property that had been co-owned by mother and daughter Keri. In that lawsuit Keri then cross-complained against Trine personally and individually, not as guardian ad litem, for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claiming that Trine took advantage of mom’s advancing dementia and coerced mom to sever the joint tenancy in the California real property.

Trine filed a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction which the trial court granted and the court of appeal upheld. Since the parties apparently agreed that Trine was not subject to general jurisdiction in California, the court evaluated whether Trine purposefully availed herself of the California forum benefits, whether the controversy is related to or arises out of the Trine’s contacts in California, and whether California’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over Trine would comport with fair play and substantial justice.

It seems to me that this case is a close call as the real property is located in California. The court in dicta also made the point that Trine was not sued in California as guardian ad litem. I also note that there would be jurisdiction over Trine in Utah. The case also has other less relevant facts and is interesting reading relating to possible undue influence.

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 case 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

New California Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7 – Lawyer as Witness – As Applied to Estate Planning and Trust and Estate Administration Lawyers

On November 1, 2018, California enacted new rules of professional conduct for lawyers. The new rules make many changes, one of which is Rule 3.7 (lawyer as witness). The prior rule (Rule 5-210) applied only to a lawyer as a witness at trial in jury trial proceedings. New Rule 3.7 does not make that distinction – new Rule 3.7 applies to both jury trial and bench or judge trial proceedings. The following is an essentially verbatim summary of new Rule 3.7:

Rule 3.7(a)(lawyer as witness):

  1. Is the lawyer acting as an advocate (i.e., in my view, is the lawyer representing a client) in a trial or an evidentiary hearing?
  2. If the answer is yes to number 1, is the lawyer likely to be a witness?
  3. If the answers are yes to numbers 1 and 2, does the lawyer’s testimony relate to a contested issue or matter?
  4. If the answers are yes to numbers 1, 2, and 3, does the lawyer’s testimony relate to other than the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case?
  5. If the answers are yes to numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4, has the lawyer obtained informed written consent from the client?

Rule 3.7(b): A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm is likely to be called as a witness unless precluded from doing so by rule 1.7 or rule 1.9.

The following is a more detailed discussion that reflects more of the practicalities of the lawyer being involved in or possibly becoming involved in a probate court proceeding in which the lawyer is a witness or might become a witness who will provide testimony or might provide testimony relating to a contested issue or matter or relating to an issue or matter that might become contested? I have stated the Rule in this manner because (1) there are situations in which the Rule is not triggered, and (2) there are situations in which the Rule is triggered, and (3) there are situations in which the Rule might be triggered or might become triggered. In situations (2) and (3) consideration should be given to obtaining informed written consent and the wording and timing of such, whether informed written consent is even an option under the Rule, and whether informed written consent or some other action such as disengagement is best under the situation, and the timing of such.

As probate court proceedings are bench or judge proceedings, for which, with limited exceptions, jury trials usually are not available, it is now important to consider the possible applicability of new Rule 3.7 in all probate court proceedings including those proceedings which have not yet reached the trial stage. New Rule 3.7 already has been a potential issue in some of my cases – Rule 3.7 will or may apply in some probate court proceedings, whereas in others it will not.

Every probate court proceeding and case is different – whether or not Rule 3.7 applies will need to be evaluated on a proceeding by proceeding and case by case basis and might need to be considered at various different times in the course of a proceeding or case as the situation could be fluid and changing.

Note that I am differentiating between a probate court proceeding and a probate court case although the two might be considered the same – many probate court proceedings are never formally scheduled for trial or evidentiary hearing – nevertheless, even when a trial or evidentiary hearing has not been formally scheduled, a reading of Rule 3.7 suggests that the possible applicability of the Rule should still be considered and an evaluation made whether the lawyer is or might be or become an advocate at a trial or evidentiary hearing or proceeding, and whether the lawyer is or might likely be a witness.

Repeating myself somewhat, because this is a situation or question that could arise more often, you will also note that Rule 3.7 can bring into consideration the possibility of conflict waiver, which raises a host of other issues to consider including, for example, the possible timing of a discussion about that possibility (such as possible discussion in an engagement letter), whether an actual conflict waiver should be considered and the timing of such, and, if a conflict waiver is required or desired, whether such a waiver is actually allowable under the circumstances of the proceeding or case, and whether such a waiver is the best or most prudent course of action compared to other possible options including possible disengagement.

New Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7 states as follows:

Rule 3.7 Lawyer as Witness

(a) A lawyer shall not act as an advocate in a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a witness unless:

(1) the lawyer’s testimony relates to an uncontested issue or matter;

(2) the lawyer’s testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or

(3) the lawyer has obtained informed written consent from the client. If the lawyer represents the People or a governmental entity, the consent shall be obtained from the head of the office or a designee of the head of the office by which the lawyer is employed.

(b) A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm is likely to be called as a witness unless precluded from doing so by rule 1.7 or rule 1.9.

You should also read the discussions and comments, and the cited case, provided under Rule 3.7 to understand and to get a feel for whether the Rule 3.7 applies in your proceeding or case, and, if so, how to approach the possible client written consent option under the facts of your proceeding or case, and possible other options and situations, including disengagement and court discretionary authority to disqualify an attorney even if written consent is obtained (see, e.g., Lyle v. Superior Court).

It is not uncommon for the estate planning attorney or firm to also be involved in subsequent post-death administration which also can be or can become a probate court proceeding. Thus, if the proceeding is a probate court proceeding, pursuant to new Rule 3.7, you must first evaluate whether the lawyer is or might be or become acting as “an advocate” representative, and whether the lawyer is or might likely become a witness providing testimony (declaration?) relating to a contested issue or matter at trial or at an evidentiary hearing or proceeding?

These questions should be carefully evaluated on a proceeding by proceeding or case by case basis. Depending on your evaluation of these issues, next evaluate on a proceeding by proceeding or case by case basis: (1) does the lawyer’s testimony relate to a contested or possibly contested matter or to an uncontested matter; (2) does the lawyer’s testimony relate (solely relate?) to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; and (3) has or will or should the client provide written consent (see also the discussion above)? And, if client written consent is an option, you will also need to consider the wording of the (informed) written consent.

Will the impact of new Rule 3.7 be earthshaking? Rule 3.7 needs to be considered on a proceeding by proceeding and case by case basis. New Rule 3.7 already is or could be applicable in many probate court proceedings and cases. The overall impact will need to be determined over time, and on a county by county and probate judge by probate judge basis. However, in probate court proceedings or cases in which the lawyer is likely or could become likely to be a witness (for example, such as in will and trust contests or possible contests, and possibly in other proceedings or cases in which there is an objection or opposition, or possibly a likely objection or opposition) Rule 3.7 might apply or at least should be considered as possibly applying including the options available.

In appropriate cases you should also consider Rule 3.7(b) which states “A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm is likely to be called as a witness unless precluded from doing so by rule 1.7 or rule 1.9.”

I will be writing subsequent posts on these issues as they can be important to estate planning and administration attorneys, and in proceedings and cases, and these are and will continue to be developing areas. Please also note that I will also be discussing other rules, cases, decisions, and issues, including possible client duties, that can or might apply in a particular situation, including, for example, Rules 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, and 1.10, which pertain to client confidential information, possible conflicts between current clients, possible conflicts between a former client and a current client, and new Rule 1.10 pursuant to which conflicts can be imputed between different attorneys in the same law firm.

Thanks for reading this post. 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

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 above), and connect with me on LinkedIn or Twitter.

From Frameworks Institute – Elder Abuse Toolkit

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best to you, David Tate, Esq.

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

* * * * *

 

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

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

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

Best to you, David Tate, Esq.

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

Snapshot of Kerry Burnight on Long Live and Master Aging

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

OVERVIEW OF A RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS THAT YOU CAN USE 03162018

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

COSO Enterprise Risk Management Framework ERM Components and Principles

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

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

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

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

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

David Tate Presentation About Trustee and Beneficiary Responsibilities and Rights, and Contentious Trust Administrations and Other Situations (May 24, 2018)

Attend My Upcoming Presentation About Trustee and Beneficiary Responsibilities and Rights, and Contentious Trust Administrations and Other Situations

Date: May 24, 2018

Time: 6:00 P.M. – 7:45 P.M.

Location: Royse Law Firm, PC, 149 Commonwealth Drive, Ste. 1001, Menlo Park, CA 94025, (650) 813-9700

I will be presenting a discussion about California trustee and beneficiary responsibilities and rights, and contentious trust administrations on May 24, 2018, from 6 p.m. to 7:45 p.m., at the Royse Law Firm, PC, at 149 Commonwealth Drive, Ste. 1001, Menlo Park, CA 94025, (650) 813-9700. The presentation is free. At the bottom of this post I have provided a link to register if you would like to attend. Please also tell other people who would be interested. The presentation and handout are detailed, but the discussion is primarily directed toward non-lawyers and other people who are not experts in the subject areas.

The presentation covers the following primary topic areas. Many of the discussion areas also apply to wills and estates:

  1. Overview of trust interpretation, responsibilities and rights
  2. Investments and management
  3. Accountings and information
  4. Uncertainties and disputes
  5. Additional select trust, estate, elder, and planning issues depending on the attendees, such as conservatorships, elder abuse, powers of attorney, mental capacity, transfers to prohibited people, when a trustor dies, planning, etc.

Please click on the following link for additional detail and to register to attend the presentation, and please also tell other people who would be interested: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/trustees-beneficiaries-responsibilities-rights-and-handling-disputes-tickets-44921355985