Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

A dispute arose over an irrevocable trust established by Priel and Jacob Grimberg, whose primary assets were two residential units. After Jacob’s death, documents were executed naming Priel’s niece, Libby Pour, as successor trustee. Arie Tomer Grimberg, the Grimbergs’ son and trust beneficiary, filed petitions in the San Diego County Superior Court to challenge the validity of these documents, alleging Priel lacked capacity and was manipulated, and further claimed that Pour diverted trust assets for her own benefit, including the improper sale of trust property and personal use of trust proceeds. The court appointed a guardian ad litem for Priel and, after various developments including Pour’s bankruptcy filings, authorized the guardian to record lis pendens on Pour’s real properties to secure potential surcharges for alleged mismanagement.The Superior Court of San Diego County issued several orders regarding the recording and withdrawal of lis pendens, in light of Pour’s bankruptcy filings and subsequent dismissals. After the bankruptcy stay lapsed, the probate court granted the guardian ad litem’s request to re-record lis pendens against Pour’s properties. Pour appealed this order, arguing that it was improper under the lis pendens statutes because there was no real property claim as defined by law, and that the order should be appealable under general Probate Code provisions.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the appeal. The court held that the order authorizing the recording of lis pendens was not appealable under Code of Civil Procedure section 405.39, which provides that such orders must be challenged by writ of mandate within a specified time, not by appeal. The court found that the more specific lis pendens statutes controlled over the general probate provisions. Even if the appeal were treated as a writ petition, it would be untimely. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. View "Grimberg v. Pour" on Justia Law

A married couple established a revocable family trust in 2002, which allowed either spouse to revoke the trust by providing written notice to the other trustee or by withdrawing their interest in the community property. In 2019, the wife filed for dissolution of marriage and subsequently executed a notarized notice revoking her interest in the community trust, transferring her interest to a new trust in her name. She served her husband with the revocation by mail, as required by the trust instrument, but did not file the notice with the court. No assets were withdrawn from the community trust. The husband received actual notice but objected to the revocation’s validity due to the lack of court filing. He did not challenge the revocation in family court or probate court while his wife was alive. After her death in 2024 and the dismissal of the marital dissolution case, he petitioned the probate court to declare the revocation invalid and confirm himself as sole trustee.The Superior Court of Ventura County reviewed the petition, with objections filed by the daughter, who was trustee of the wife’s trust. The probate court denied the request for an evidentiary hearing and the petition itself, finding that the husband was not prejudiced by the revocation, as he had received actual notice and his property interests were unaffected. The court determined that the wife had substantially complied with the statutory requirements by serving notice, fulfilling the purpose of the relevant statute.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed the probate court’s judgment. The Court held that failure to file the revocation in court did not render it void when the other spouse had received actual notice, as substantial compliance with statutory notice requirements satisfied the statute’s objectives. The Court also held that an evidentiary hearing was not required because there were no disputed material facts. View "Jackson v. Meyer" on Justia Law

An individual established a revocable living trust in 2011, naming her three adult children as successor beneficiaries. One son, Lin-Chuan, was designated to receive all real property and a portion of bank accounts. Lin-Chuan died in 2016, before the trust creator, and was survived by his three children. After the trust creator died in 2019, the remaining child, acting as temporary successor trustee, sought a probate court determination that the transfer of trust property to Lin-Chuan failed because he predeceased the settlor. The trustee argued the transfer should lapse and be distributed according to intestacy, effectively excluding Lin-Chuan’s children as beneficiaries.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the matter following the trustee’s motion for summary adjudication. The court found that a provision in the trust stating any named person failing to survive the settlor by thirty days would be deemed to have predeceased the settlor constituted a “contrary intention” under California’s antilapse statute (Probate Code section 21110), thereby preventing Lin-Chuan’s children from taking the property. The court granted summary adjudication in favor of the trustee, determining the gifts to Lin-Chuan would lapse.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, examined whether the trust expressed a clear intent to override the statutory presumption favoring the descendants of a predeceased beneficiary. The Court held that the trust provision did not constitute a survival requirement sufficient to defeat the antilapse statute, as it lacked explicit language disinheriting Lin-Chuan’s children. The Court reversed the probate court’s order, directing it to deny summary adjudication and allow Lin-Chuan’s children to benefit under the trust. View "In re Tung Trust" on Justia Law

Several cousins are shareholders in a closely held family corporation that owns industrial real estate. The dispute centers on the shares held by a trust established by one family member, Sheila, and who has the right to vote those shares after she became incapacitated and her husband resigned as trustee. The parties disagree about the operation of a buy-sell agreement, which the Levins argue restricts the transfer of voting power over the shares, while the Clapkins assert it allows the shares to be controlled by the children as successor cotrustees. The conflict over control of the trust’s shares led to a series of lawsuits between the parties.Previously, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, handling multiple related actions, determined that the probate court had exclusive jurisdiction to decide the identity of the trust’s trustees. The probate court subsequently ruled in favor of the Clapkins, confirming them as successor cotrustees of the trust. After this order, the Levins filed a new lawsuit claiming the transfer of voting power violated the buy-sell agreement, while the Clapkins, in response, filed a cross-complaint seeking to enforce their right to vote the trust’s shares and to be registered as the record holders.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the Levins’ special motion to strike most of the claims in the cross-complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute). The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion, holding that the claims did not arise from protected litigation activity but rather from the underlying dispute over voting rights and control of the corporation. The court also dismissed the Clapkins’ appeal from the denial of their request for attorneys’ fees, finding the order was not separately appealable. The main holding is that the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply because the claims arose from unprotected conduct regarding the internal corporate dispute, not from protected petitioning activity. View "Clapkin v. Levin" on Justia Law

A dispute arose among four adult brothers regarding the division of their parents’ estate. After their mother’s death, two of the brothers, Brittin and Kent, reported to the San Diego Police Department that their mother was missing, despite knowing she had died of natural causes. Their intention was to cast suspicion on their siblings, Todd and Wade, with whom they had a contentious relationship. The police briefly investigated before learning of the mother’s death and closing the matter. The phone call from the police deeply distressed Wade, a recovering alcoholic who had been sober for 15 years. Within a week, Wade relapsed, drove his motorcycle while intoxicated, and died in a crash. A psychologist testified at trial that the distress caused by the police inquiry precipitated Wade’s relapse.The Superior Court of San Diego County presided over a jury trial in which Todd, both individually and as Wade’s successor in interest, pursued claims for wrongful death, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), negligence, and conspiracy. The jury found Brittin and Kent liable for negligence and IIED, and determined their conduct was a substantial factor in causing Wade severe emotional distress and his subsequent death. Damages were awarded to both Wade’s estate and Todd, including punitive damages. The defendants’ motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and for a new trial were denied.On appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, the defendants conceded the jury’s factual findings but argued that their actions were not, as a matter of law, the legal cause of Wade’s death. The appellate court rejected this argument, holding that under the broader scope of liability for intentional torts, the defendants' intentional infliction of emotional distress was a legal cause of Wade’s death. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and the denial of JNOV, upholding all damages awards. View "Fisher v. Fisher" on Justia Law

The case centers on the estate of Charles Frazier, who, after becoming very ill in late 2019, was cared for by Michael and Kelly Pagano. During this period, Frazier executed a new trust with the Paganos’ assistance, granting them a substantial portion of his assets. Shortly before his death in January 2020, Frazier expressed regret over this change to his nephews, Jeff and Theodore Haun, and executed another trust to revert his estate plan. After Frazier’s passing, the Paganos filed a civil complaint alleging Haun and Jeff had exerted undue influence over Frazier for personal benefit. Haun, as trustee of the January 2020 trust, then initiated a probate petition claiming financial elder abuse by the Paganos.The Superior Court of San Diego County consolidated the competing probate petitions for trial. After eight days of trial, the court found the Paganos had exerted undue influence over Frazier in the creation of the December 2019 trust and committed financial elder abuse. Haun and Jeff, however, were not found to have unduly influenced Frazier regarding the January 2020 trust. The court granted Haun’s petition, denied Kelly’s petition, awarded Haun compensatory and statutory damages, and entitled him to attorney’s fees. The court determined all attorney’s fees incurred by Haun were inextricably intertwined with his defense and prosecution of the elder abuse claims, making apportionment impractical.On appeal, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, addressed whether Haun could recover attorney’s fees under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5(a), a unilateral fee-shifting provision, given the intertwined nature of his prosecution and defense. The court held that the statute does not bar recovery of fees for defense work that overlaps with prosecution of a successful financial elder abuse claim by a prevailing plaintiff. The judgment was affirmed, and costs of appeal were awarded to Haun. View "Haun v. Pagano" on Justia Law

The dispute arose when one attorney, after obtaining a $5 million default judgment against another attorney in California, sought to collect on that judgment by levying two Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) belonging to the judgment debtor. The debtor argued that because he had moved to Florida, Florida’s statutory exemptions should apply, shielding his IRAs from collection. He also claimed the IRAs were funded from a surrendered life insurance policy held in a private retirement plan, asserting exemptions under California law for both the policy and the retirement plan.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the claim of exemption. Initially, the court tentatively applied Florida law but later decided the law of the forum state—California—should govern exemption claims. Ultimately, the court found the debtor failed to prove that the IRAs qualified for any exemption under California law, including the private retirement plan exemption or that the funds were necessary for his support. The court denied the claim of exemption, permitting the creditor to levy the IRAs.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. It held that California law applies to collection actions in California courts regardless of the judgment debtor’s domicile. It further concluded that a surrendered life insurance policy is not necessarily exempt from collection and, once surrendered, is treated as matured, requiring proof that the proceeds are necessary for support. The court found substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s factual findings, applied a de novo review to legal questions, and affirmed the order denying the exemption. Thus, the IRAs were subject to collection, and the trial court’s order was affirmed. View "Bagby v. Davis" on Justia Law

A woman, Susan, was one of three beneficiaries of her father Warren’s trust. She believed the trust’s terms were unfair to her compared to her brothers, David and Michael, as her share was subject to restrictive terms and higher taxes. Warren allegedly wanted to amend the trust to make distributions equal among his children, and had consulted an attorney about this. Susan claimed that David and Michael undertook several actions in 2021 to prevent Warren from making this amendment, including interfering with his lawyer, making accusations against Susan, and isolating Warren.Previously, Susan filed a probate petition in Alameda County Superior Court, seeking to remove David as trustee and as Warren’s agent, and alleging elder isolation and similar misconduct by her brothers. The probate petition raised many of the same factual allegations later made in this civil case. After Warren’s death, Susan dismissed her probate petition without prejudice. She then filed a civil complaint, asserting claims for intentional interference with expected inheritance (IIEI) and elder financial abuse. The elder abuse claim was later dismissed, and the IIEI claim proceeded. David filed a demurrer, arguing Susan had an adequate remedy in probate, among other defenses.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case after the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed Susan’s complaint. The appellate court held that Susan’s IIEI claim could not proceed because she had an adequate remedy in probate. The court reasoned that the tort of IIEI is only available when probate does not provide a remedy, and Susan, as a beneficiary, had standing and the ability to seek relief in probate but chose to dismiss her petition. The judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed. View "Halperin v. Halperin" on Justia Law

Following the death of Daniel W. Bodmann, Sr., a dispute arose among his widow, Heather Holden-Bodmann, and his six biological and stepchildren, including Thomas E. Krouse, Jr. (Tom), over the administration of Bodmann Insurance—an estate asset—and the appointment of an executor for Dan’s estate. Dan’s holographic will named all seven children as executors and directed Andrea, one of the children, to maintain the insurance business. After Dan’s death, Andrea relied on Tom to help facilitate the transfer of the business’s clients, but conflict emerged between Tom and Heather regarding access to business records. The court found that Tom’s conduct toward Heather was aggressively disrespectful and contributed to a breakdown in cooperation, resulting in the decline of Bodmann Insurance.In the San Mateo County Superior Court, dueling petitions were filed for appointment as executor and special administrator. After an 11-day bench trial, Judge Buchwald found Tom’s behavior disqualified him from managing the business and denied his appointment as executor, citing his unwarranted aggression toward Heather and its detrimental impact on the estate asset. Interim orders limited Tom’s involvement in the business, allowed Andrea to run it, and later appointed Beth as special administrator and prospective executor after Dan, Jr. withdrew his request to serve.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding Tom’s conduct amounted to mismanagement of the estate under Probate Code sections 8402(a)(3) and 8502(a), thus disqualifying him as executor. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s order, holding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Tom’s aggressive and disruptive treatment of Heather “mismanaged” Bodmann Insurance, justifying his disqualification as executor. The orders denying Tom’s petition and limiting his participation in the business were affirmed. View "In re Estate of Bodmann" on Justia Law

In 2018, the plaintiff was placed on an involuntary 72-hour psychiatric hold, resulting in the creation of a confidential record by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. In 2021, during a legal dispute over their father’s estate, the plaintiff discovered that his sister’s attorney had obtained this confidential record and used it to threaten him in an attempt to force dismissal of his elder abuse lawsuit against his sister. The record had been released by an office specialist at the Sheriff’s Department, who admitted knowing the sister was not entitled to the record but disclosed it anyway, believing she was concerned for the plaintiff’s well-being.A jury in the Superior Court of Orange County found that the office specialist willfully and knowingly disclosed the confidential record, awarding the plaintiff $29,000 in economic damages and $40,000 in noneconomic damages. The jury also found the plaintiff’s sister and her attorney responsible for 25 percent of the damages. However, the trial court granted a motion for partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict, concluding there was insufficient evidence of willfulness, declined to treble the damages, and apportioned both economic and noneconomic damages, entering judgment for 75 percent of the total damages against the office specialist and the County.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reversed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that “willfully and knowingly” under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5330 means intentionally releasing confidential records to someone known to be unauthorized, regardless of intent to harm. The court found substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of willfulness, requiring trebling of damages. The court also held that while noneconomic damages could be apportioned to other tortfeasors, economic damages could not. The case was remanded with instructions to enter judgment for $177,000 against the County and the office specialist, jointly and severally. View "Doe v. County of Orange" on Justia Law