Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

Kenneth M. (Matazo) and Kazu Tagami were grantors of the Trust. Matazo and Kazu had three children: Kenneth K., Barbara, and Charles. A family dispute arose when the settlors suspected the prior trustee, who was Barbara's son, of embezzling funds from the Trust. Matazo and Kazu removed the prior trustee and appointed professional fiduciary Claudia Powell as trustee. Attorney Nancy Ewin drafted the restatement of the Trust; Powell hired attorney Kent Thompson to represent her in her fiduciary capacity as trustee of the Trust. A physician certified in March 2012 that Kazu was unable to make her own financial and medical decisions due to medical issues. Matazo died in August 2012. Kazu died almost three years later, in June 2015. Charles challenged two probate orders: (1) settling, allowing and approving the third and final predeath account and report of trustee (Third Account) and finding Charles objected to the Third Account without reasonable cause and in bad faith, which justified an award of costs and fees pursuant to Probate Code section 17211 (a); and (2) an award of attorney fees pursuant to Probate Code 17211 requiring Charles to pay these fees from his share of the Tagami Living Trust or personally if his share was inadequate. The Court of Appeal disagreed with Charles' contentions in both appeals and affirmed the Probate Court's orders. View "Powell v. Tagami" on Justia Law

Harvey Cohoon was diagnosed with a treatable form of cancer and was residing at Victoria Healthcare Center while he underwent treatment and recovered from various injuries he had suffered. For 19 days, Cohoon did well at Victoria Center. On the 20th day, he was observed to have difficulty swallowing thin liquids, and after evaluation, his diet was changed. Plaintiff contended that change was not properly communicated to the kitchen, and that night he was served a dinner that did not comport with his new diet. Less than 20 minutes after being served dinner, a nurse found him in respiratory arrest. The paramedics had to remove large pieces of chicken from his throat before intubating him. More pieces of chicken were removed from his airway at the hospital. He died the following day due to complications from oxygen deprivation to his brain. Donna Cochrum, Cohoon’s niece, filed suit against Victoria Center, asserting causes of action for elder abuse and negligence. As personal representative of Cohoon’s estate, Cochrum asserted a wrongful death cause of action. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Cochrum on all causes of action. Subsequently, the trial court granted a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), finding insufficient evidence of recklessness to support the elder abuse cause of action. It also adjusted the remaining damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3333.2. Cochrum appealed the amended judgment, contending the evidence supported the elder abuse cause of action. Two of the defendants cross-appealed, contending the court improperly applied the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 cap. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the amended judgment. View "Cochrum v. Costa Victoria Healthcare, LLC" on Justia Law

Arthur Blech died and left an estate worth over $65 million. At issue on appeal was how to account for the sale of the 3,050-acre Blech Ranch, located in San Luis Obispo County, California. In the published portion of the opinion, the Court of Appeal determined that the gift of Blech Ranch (and of its equivalent in cash as of the date of its sale) was a funding mechanism for Raymond Blech's 35% share of the remainder or residue of the estate rather than an additional specific gift to him. View "Blech v. Blech" on Justia Law

Decedent and objector were married for 32 years. Petitioners are decedent’s sons from a prior relationship. In 1993, decedent and objector secured a joint term life insurance policy, naming objector as the primary beneficiary, with petitioners as contingent beneficiaries. In 2013, decedent executed a will. A 2014 final judgment dissolved decedent’s marriage to objector, awarding decedent full ownership of the Policy. In 2016, decedent executed a handwritten codicil, stating that he did not want objector “inheriting anything from [him] under any circumstances by beneficiary designation or otherwise.” At the time of his death, objector remained as the primary beneficiary of the Policy. Petitioners sought to be designated as the rightful beneficiaries of the Policy under Probate Code sections 50401 and 9611. The probate court ordered payment to the petitioners. The court of appeal reversed. The jurisdiction of the probate court may not be invoked where the only relevant alleged assets of the estate are alleged to be the proceeds of a life insurance policy, the beneficiary of which is not the estate. View "Estate of Post" on Justia Law

The trust instrument at issue in this appeal purported to allow the former trustee to withhold from a successor trustee all of his or her communications with legal counsel. Consistent with statute and case law, the Court of Appeal held a trust may not allow a former trustee to withhold from a successor trustee all communications between that former trustee and the trust’s legal counsel. The attorney-client privilege vests in the office of the trustee, not in any particular person. A provision permitting a trustee to withhold documents from a successor trustee violates public policy and is unenforceable. Allowing a former trustee to withhold from a successor trustee communications with the trust’s former legal counsel would permit a trustee to intentionally (or with gross negligence or reckless indifference) violate duties with no check on his or her conduct. The trial court ordered the former trustee to turn over specified communications with the trust’s former legal counsel to the successor trustees and their current legal counsel. The former trustee sought a writ of mandate to reverse the trial court’s order. The Court of Appeal denied the petition. View "Morgan v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

A successor trustee filed suit against defendants, alleging claims arising from an allegedly void assignment of a deed of trust on certain real property and a failed short sale agreement. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court properly sustained the demurrers to all causes of action, but abused its discretion in denying leave to amend. In this case, the trustee has proposed facts sufficient to show that the assignment at issue was void. Accordingly, the court reversed and directed the trial court to grant the trustee leave to amend the complaint. View "Hacker v. Homeward Residential, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, a trustee sold at foreclosure property once owned by a convicted fraudster and there were surplus proceeds. The trial court concluded that the lis pendens was inadequate to give the County any interest in the property because the criminal court had ordered restitution but had not ordered the property levied upon to satisfy the restitution award. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's award of the surplus proceeds to the trusts. The court held that the County had no interest in the property as it was not seized and, on their own, the lis pendens and temporary restraining order did not mandate a different result. View "Integrated Lender Services v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

In this case, a trustee sold at foreclosure property once owned by a convicted fraudster and there were surplus proceeds. The trial court concluded that the lis pendens was inadequate to give the County any interest in the property because the criminal court had ordered restitution but had not ordered the property levied upon to satisfy the restitution award. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's award of the surplus proceeds to the trusts. The court held that the County had no interest in the property as it was not seized and, on their own, the lis pendens and temporary restraining order did not mandate a different result. View "Integrated Lender Services v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Emerita Cruz Joya appealed a probate court order approving the final accounting and settling the estate of Norman Casserley (Decedent). Joya had filed a creditor's claim against Decedent's estate based on a criminal restitution order entered in her husband's favor, which was recorded after Decedent's death. The court rejected Joya's argument that her claim was entitled to priority either as a recorded lien or under the state Constitution's restitution provision. The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the probate court’s rejection of Joya’s claim, and affirmed. View "Estate of Casserley" on Justia Law

Plaintiff unsuccessfully sued Bartsch’s estate, claiming to be Bartsch’s son, unintentionally omitted from his father’s will. The court of appeal upheld a finding that Bartsch was aware of plaintiff’s existence when he executed his will, having reluctantly made court-ordered child support payments to plaintiff’s mother for many years. Plaintiff separately sued the attorney who represented the executor and the executor, alleging intentional fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment, because the defendants stated under penalty of perjury that decedent had no children when they filed the probate petition, did not serve notice of their petition on plaintiff, and “willfully failed to inform the Court [that plaintiff was Bartsch’s son], depriving plaintiff of the opportunity to assert a claim. He also alleged that the way defendants stated the petition’s allegations made him believe that decedent “was not aware that he had a son or had forgotten it,” leading him to incur significant legal fees. The court of appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff could not establish any damages because it was established that he had no interest in Bartsch’s estate. His claims are based entirely on the defendants' representations in connection with the probate proceeding and are, therefore, barred by the litigation privilege, Civil Code 47(b). View "Herterich v. Peltner" on Justia Law