A good discussion and link from the National Center on Elder Abuse, discussing what is elder abuse, Click Here for article.
Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco)
A good discussion and link from the National Center on Elder Abuse, discussing what is elder abuse, Click Here for article.
Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco)
Link to long-term insurance article, Click Here. Enjoy.
Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco)
The following is a link to an interesting article about the Will of George Washington (with attachments of the actual will), Click Here.
Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco)
King v. Lynch (California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, April 10, 2012, Case No. F062232).
California Probate Code §15402 states: “Unless the trust instrument provides otherwise, if a trust is revocable by the settlor, the settlor may modify the trust by the procedure for revocation.” In King v. Lynch the court held that if the trust instrument is silent on modification, the trust may be modified in the same manner in which it could be revoked, either statutorily or as provided in the trust instrument. However, as the trust provided for modification by joint execution by both settlers during the lifetime of both settlers, and as both settlers were alive at the time that only one settler signed the modifications in question although the other settler might have been mentally incompetent at the time of the proposed modifications, the modifications in question were void as they did not comply with the terms of trust which required joint execution by both settlers.
Updated, April 4, 2012, summary of California fiduciary duty, trust, estate, elder & conservatorship cases during this past year, California Fiduciary Duty, Trust, Estate, Elder & Conservatorship Cases for the Past Year 04042012, or Click Here.
Estate of Moss (California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Case No. D058547, March 20, 2012)
Holding that service of a will contest pleading on the attorney for the party who filed the earlier petition to probate the will that was being contested was sufficient service as the attorney for the party who filed the petition for probate was that party’s ostensible agent for service of process for the purpose of the contest pleading. However, the Court also specified that its holding was limited to situations such as in the Estate of Moss case.