Summary of California Trustee and Beneficiary Responsibilities and Rights, and Handling Contentious Trust Administrations and Other Family Situations (PPT slides saved as PDF)

The following is a link to a PDF of my PowerPoint slides for a Summary of California Trustee and Beneficiary Responsibilities and Rights, and Handling Contentious Trust Administrations and Other Family Situations: David Tate, Esq. – Summary of California Trustee and Beneficiary Responsibilities and Rights 02252020 Slides Saved as PDF

And below is a snapshot of page 1 of the slides. Best to you, Dave Tate, Esq.

 

 

When do you not have the right to remain silent in conservatorship proceedings (Weintraub Tobin) – with Tate’s comments added

I have provided below a link to a Weintraub Tobin post about conservatorship proceedings and when a conservatee or prospective conservatee might have or might not have the right to remain silent (i.e., the right to not be compelled to testify). The post references Conservatorship of Bryan S. which was a LPS conservatorship; however, some of the same arguments might also be made in regular or general conservatorship proceedings.

A conservatorship proceeding is a state action in which the court is petitioned to order that there be a limitation on the conservatee’s freedom of choice or decision making, and in some circumstances the conservatee’s personal freedom of movement, or of living condition, or of right to not be medicated.

This post by Weintraub is also timely in light of the State of California’s initiative to use conservatorship proceedings more often.

As noted, in Conservatorship of Bryan S. the Court held that the prospective conservatee did not have the right to refuse to testify unless the questions and the answers thereto may incriminate the prospective conservatee in a criminal matter – and that question or issue, i.e., about possible incrimination, could be relevant for consideration in at least some conservatorship proceedings. And I also note that Conservatorship of Bryan S. involved only one Court of Appeals – other Court of Appeals might differ and at some point this issue might be brought up to the California Supreme Court.

You can find other posts about conservatorship proceedings throughout this blog – in the search box type in the word conservatorship.

The following is a link to the Weintraub Tobin discussion: https://www.weintraub.com/blogs/when-do-you-not-have-the-right-to-remain-silent-conservatorship-proceedings-and-equal-protection-clause-claims

—————————————————————

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

Barefoot v. Jennings, Supreme Court of California (January 23, 2020), Standing Under Cal. Probate Code §17200, and More . . .

Barefoot v. Jennings, Supreme Court of California (January 23, 2020), S251574, 2020 WL 372523

Summary and Holding: (1) Settlor Maynord executed eight amendments (amendment numbers 17 through 24) to the trust through which petitioner’s/plaintiff’s share of the trust as set out in the 16th amendment was eliminated; (2) the Court held that petitioner/plaintiff, an ex-beneficiary, has standing to bring an action under Cal. Probate Code §17200 to challenge the validity of the trust amendments where she alleges that the amendments that disinherited her were invalid because Maynord was incompetent to make the amendments; the amendments were the product of respondents’/defendants’ undue influence; and the amendments were the product of respondents’/defendants’ fraud; (3) §17200 allows a trustee or a beneficiary to petition the Court; (4) petitioner/plaintiff had standing under §17200 because although she is not currently a beneficiary, she would or will be a beneficiary if her allegations are proven.

The following are my initial comments:

  1. I don’t understand why the Court went down this path – petitioner already had standing to challenge or contest the trust amendments under her three theories (lack of mental capacity, undue influence, and fraud) – §17200 wasn’t necessary to provide petitioner with standing. Nevertheless, the holding is as it is.
  2. Allegations of lack of mental capacity, undue influence, and fraud can or might trigger a no contest clause – does bringing the action under §17200 in some manner change (lower or eliminate) that argument? See also footnote 3 in this regard.
  3. It is interesting that since petitioner was provided benefits under the 16th amendment, she had to argue that the 17th through 24th amendments are all invalid.
  4. The Court’s decision is not based on the Legislative intent – I would have thought that it would be, or at least that the Court would have thought that the Legislative intent would be relevant.
  5. In its decision the Court specifically declines to discuss or interpret Cal. Probate Code §850. That would have been an interesting discussion as I have had cases involving allegations pertaining to §850 (and §859) and when someone has standing or not – there is almost no case law on this topic although there is Legislative history. For example, one provision of §850 provides that in particular circumstances a trustee or an interested person has standing to bring a petition – but absent case law, I would not view “interested person” under §850 as being the same as “beneficiary” in the context of the Barefoot v. Jennings discussion under §17200.
  6. The Court’s decision is of interest for additional reasons, including, for example, the Court’s affirmation that in construing a trust the Court’s primary duty is to give effect to the settlor’s intentions, and the Probate Court has extremely broad power and authority to apply equitable and legal principles in order to assist its function as a Probate Court, and is given broad jurisdiction over practically all controversies that might arise between trustees and those claiming to be beneficiaries of the trust (including to preserve trust assets and the rights of all purported beneficiaries while the Court adjudicates the standing issue).

We can expect that more decisions will be forthcoming relating to the impact of the holding in Barefoot v. Jennings, potential issues that I have discussed above, standing under §17200, and the entirety of §850, et seq.

You can click on the following link for a copy of Barefoot v. Jennings Barefoot v Jennings California Supreme Court

—————————————————————

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; 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
  • Access to corporate and business records disputes
  • Employee, employer and workplace disputes and processes, 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, culture, ethics, etc.

The following are copies of the tables of contents of three of the more formal materials that I have written over the years about accounting/auditing, audit committees, and related legal topics – Accounting and Its Legal Implications was my first formal effort, which resulted in a published book that had more of an accounting and auditing focus; Chapter 5A, Audit Committee Functions and Responsibilities, for the California Continuing Education of the Bar has a more legal focus; and the most recent Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide (February 2017) also has a more legal focus:

Accounting and Its Legal Implications

Chapter 5A, Audit Committee Functions and Responsibilities, CEB Advising and Defending Corporate Directors and Officers

Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide

The following are other summary materials that you might find useful:

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

From a prior blog post which you can find at https://wp.me/p75iWX-dk if the below scan is too difficult to read:

* * * * *

New Case Holding: Will Provisions Override Account Ownership Provisions

—————————————————————

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; 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
  • Access to corporate and business records disputes
  • Employee, employer and workplace disputes and processes, 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, culture, ethics, etc.

The following are copies of the tables of contents of three of the more formal materials that I have written over the years about accounting/auditing, audit committees, and related legal topics – Accounting and Its Legal Implications was my first formal effort, which resulted in a published book that had more of an accounting and auditing focus; Chapter 5A, Audit Committee Functions and Responsibilities, for the California Continuing Education of the Bar has a more legal focus; and the most recent Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide (February 2017) also has a more legal focus:

Accounting and Its Legal Implications

Chapter 5A, Audit Committee Functions and Responsibilities, CEB Advising and Defending Corporate Directors and Officers

Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide

The following are other summary materials that you might find useful:

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

From a prior blog post which you can find at https://wp.me/p75iWX-dk if the below scan is too difficult to read:

* * * * *

Power of Attorney / Attorney in Fact Responsibilities and Rights – Slides 13, 14, 15 and 16

I seldom see discussions about power of attorney, principal, and attorney-in-fact responsibilities and rights. I am providing some of my power of attorney presentation slides. Click on the following links for my three prior posts containing my slide numbers 3, 4, and 5 https://wp.me/p1wbl8-tK, slide numbers 6, 7, and 8 https://wp.me/p1wbl8-u5, and slide numbers 9, 10, 11, and 12 https://wp.me/p1wbl8-uj. Below in this post I have provided slide numbers 13, 14, 15, and 16, which are the remaining slides that I am posting.

You should note, obviously these slides are a summary of what can be a complicated area of law and specific facts, they are not a solicitation for services inside or outside of California, and they do not pertain to any particular situation or to you and your situation. You need to consult with an appropriate professional for your specific situation.

Best to you, Dave Tate, Esq. (California)

Blogs:

 

 

 

Power of Attorney / Attorney in Fact Responsibilities and Rights – Slides 9, 10, 11 and 12

I seldom see discussions about power of attorney, principal, and attorney-in-fact responsibilities and rights. I am providing some of my power of attorney presentation slides. Click on the following links for my two prior posts containing my slide numbers 3, 4, and 5 https://wp.me/p1wbl8-tK and slide numbers 6, 7, and 8 https://wp.me/p1wbl8-u5. Below in this post I have provided slide numbers 9, 10, 11, and 12. Slide numbers 13, 14, 15, and 16 will be provided in a subsequent post.

You should note, obviously these slides are a summary of what can be a complicated area of law and specific facts, they are not a solicitation for services inside or outside of California, and they do not pertain to any particular situation or to you and your situation. You need to consult with an appropriate professional for your specific situation.

Best to you, Dave Tate, Esq. (California)

Blogs:

Power of Attorney / Attorney in Fact Responsibilities and Rights – Slides 3, 4 and 5

I seldom see discussions about power of attorney, principal, and attorney-in-fact responsibilities and rights. In this post and in subsequent posts I will be providing some of my power of attorney presentation slides. Below in this post I have provided screenshots of my slide numbers 3, 4 and 5.

You should note, obviously these slides are a summary of what can be a complicated area of law and specific facts, they are not a solicitation for services inside or outside of California, and they do not pertain to any particular situation or to you and your situation. You need to consult with an appropriate professional for your specific situation.

Best to you, Dave Tate, Esq. (California)

Blogs:

 

 

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 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

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