Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

Jeffrey Winter, as trustee, filed a petition against Franklin Menlo, seeking instructions regarding a trust, Frank's suspension and removal as cotrustee, an accounting, and an order revoking a power of appointment executed by Vera Menlo for lack of capacity. The petition also included allegations of financial elder abuse, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and wrongful taking of property. Prior to this, Jeffrey had consulted with attorney Adam Streisand about potential litigation against Frank, sharing confidential information.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County disqualified Streisand and his law firm, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hamilton LLP, from representing Frank. The court found that Jeffrey was a prospective client under Rule 1.18 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits attorneys from representing clients with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client if the attorney received confidential information material to the matter. The court determined that the information Jeffrey shared with Streisand remained confidential and material, necessitating disqualification to avoid the use of that information.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court agreed with the lower court's interpretation that materiality should be evaluated at the time of disqualification. It concluded that the information disclosed by Jeffrey to Streisand remained confidential and material, thus affirming the disqualification. The appellate court also considered the equities, noting that the case was still in its early stages and that Frank could find other competent counsel. The order of the Superior Court was affirmed, maintaining the disqualification of Streisand and his firm. View "Winter v. Menlo" on Justia Law

Leslie J. Knoles (Decedent) and Ruth Catello co-owned a property as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. After Decedent's death in 2020, the property's title became disputed. Decedent's four siblings and Catello were involved in probate proceedings regarding the property and other estate assets. Concurrently, the siblings filed a civil action in 2022 to partition the property. The trial court identified the property owners as Catello and Decedent’s estate and ordered a partition by sale. Catello appealed, arguing that the siblings lacked standing to sue for partition because ownership of the property was still undetermined in probate court.The Superior Court of San Diego County entered an interlocutory judgment for partition by sale, identifying the property owners and ordering the sale proceeds to be distributed accordingly. Catello did not challenge the siblings' standing during the trial court proceedings. The siblings filed a cross-claim for partition by sale, asserting that the 2020 quitclaim deed was valid and that they would inherit Decedent's interest in the property. The trial court ruled in favor of the siblings, leading to Catello's appeal.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court held that the siblings lacked standing to bring the partition claim because the probate court had not yet determined the ownership of the property. The court emphasized that clear title is required to bring a partition action, and the ongoing probate proceedings meant that the siblings' ownership interest was not confirmed. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the uncertainty of ownership precluded the siblings from establishing the necessary standing for their partition claim. View "Amundson v. Catello" on Justia Law

Attorney Barry Tarlow executed a will in 2005, with minor modifications in 2006, leaving his estate to be divided between his siblings, Barbara Tarlow Rapposelli and Gerald Tarlow. Gerald was to receive his share outright, while Barbara's share was to be placed in a trust, with David Henry Simon named as trustee. Barry Tarlow passed away in April 2021, and the will was admitted to probate in July 2021. Barbara and Gerald became executors of the estate, while Simon retained his role as trustee.Barbara and Gerald filed an ex parte petition in January 2022 to replace Simon as trustee and modify the trust terms, which was denied. They later filed a petition for final distribution of the estate in July 2022, stating that Barbara had disclaimed her share, leading to a redistribution of the estate. Simon objected, arguing that Barbara's disclaimer was improper and filed his own petition under section 11700, seeking distribution of Barbara's interest to him as trustee and to rescind Barbara's purchase of the Fidelity Fund's interest in the trust. The trial court sustained Barbara and Gerald's demurrer, ruling Simon lacked standing.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court held that Simon, as the named trustee, had standing under section 11700 to file a petition for distribution of the estate. The court found that Simon's claim to the estate assets as trustee made him a person entitled to distribution under the statute. The court reversed the trial court's order sustaining the demurrer and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with sections 11700 et seq. and the opinion. View "In re Estate of Tarlow" on Justia Law

Scott Packard (Scott) appealed an order granting judgment in favor of Gregory Roy Packard (Greg), as trustee of the Newton Roy Packard Trust, on Scott’s petition to reform an amendment to the trust. Scott argued that the probate court erred in finding his petition constituted a trust contest subject to a 120-day statute of limitations under Probate Code section 16061.7.The Superior Court of San Diego County had granted Greg’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that Scott’s petition was a trust contest and thus barred by the statute of limitations. The court found that the handwritten interlineation in the trust amendment was unambiguous and that Scott’s petition effectively sought to invalidate this amendment, constituting a contest to the trust.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court concluded that Scott’s petition was not a trust contest but rather a request to reform the trust to correct an alleged mistake in the trustor’s expression of intent. The court held that Scott’s petition was not subject to the 120-day statute of limitations for trust contests. The court emphasized that reformation petitions, which seek to correct a mistake to reflect the true intent of the trustor, do not constitute contests to the trust.The appellate court reversed the probate court’s order granting judgment on the pleadings and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court directed the probate court to deny Greg’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, allowing Scott the opportunity to prove his claim by clear and convincing evidence. Scott was awarded his costs on appeal. View "Packard v. Packard" on Justia Law

The case involves James B. Church & Associates, P.C. (the Church Firm), which served as legal counsel for Dennis Shogren, the personal representative of the estate of Loren R. Kirk, in a probate action. The estate beneficiaries, including Barbara Sagehorn and the Carter Beneficiaries, alleged that the Church Firm negligently failed to file a protective claim for a refund with the IRS or advise Shogren to do so. This failure purportedly resulted in the estate missing out on a potential $5,000,000 tax refund.The Superior Court of San Bernardino denied the Church Firm's special motion to strike the causes of action under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court found that the firm did not demonstrate that the causes of action arose from its constitutionally protected free speech or petitioning activities. The Church Firm appealed this decision.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court conducted an independent review and agreed with the lower court's ruling. It determined that the alleged acts forming the basis of the petitioners' causes of action—specifically, the Church Firm's failure to file a protective claim for a refund and failure to advise Shogren to file such a claim—were not protected activities under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court emphasized that the anti-SLAPP statute protects statements or writings made before or in connection with an issue under consideration by a judicial body, not failures to act or speak.Therefore, the Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying the anti-SLAPP motion, concluding that the Church Firm did not meet its burden of proving that the causes of action arose from protected conduct. View "Callister v. James B. Church & Associates" on Justia Law

Attorney John Peter Wakeman, Jr., and Wakeman Law Group, Inc., were sued for legal malpractice by Jeffrey G. Grossman, Alexis Grossman, and Nicholas Grossman. The plaintiffs claimed that Wakeman negligently prepared estate planning documents for Dr. A. Richard Grossman, which disinherited them and left the entire estate to Richard's fourth wife, Elizabeth Grossman. Richard's estate was valued at $18 million. Despite the disinheritance, the jury found that the plaintiffs were the intended beneficiaries and awarded them $9.5 million in damages.The Ventura County Superior Court entered judgments in favor of the plaintiffs based on the jury's findings. The court also denied Wakeman's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Wakeman appealed, arguing that he owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs, as they were not his clients and his duty was solely to Richard.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to show that Wakeman owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs. The court emphasized that there was no clear, certain, and undisputed evidence of Richard's intent to benefit the plaintiffs by leaving his estate to them instead of Elizabeth. The court relied on the precedent set by Gordon v. Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP, which requires clear and undisputed evidence of a client's intent to benefit a third party for a duty of care to be established.The Court of Appeal reversed the judgments and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to enter judgment in favor of Wakeman and Wakeman Law Group, Inc. The appeal from the order denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was dismissed as moot. View "Grossman v. Wakeman" on Justia Law

Thomas Reich created a revocable trust in 2003, which was later amended in 2016. The trust provided specific cash gifts to his ex-wife, brother, and nephew, and the residue to his daughter Shannon or granddaughter Leah if Shannon predeceased him. Thomas also maintained an IRA, designating Shannon's and Leah's separate trusts as beneficiaries. Thomas married Pamela Reich in 2020 and died in 2021 without updating his trust to include her. Pamela sought an omitted spouse's share of Thomas's estate, including the IRA proceeds.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially overruled a demurrer by Shannon, ruling that IRA proceeds could sometimes be included in a decedent's estate. However, after a partial settlement excluding the IRA proceeds, Pamela filed new petitions regarding her entitlement to the IRA proceeds. The probate court dismissed these petitions, reasoning that the IRA proceeds were nonprobate assets and did not pass through Thomas's trust.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the IRA proceeds were not part of Thomas's estate for calculating Pamela's omitted spouse's share because IRAs are nonprobate assets. The court noted that the IRA proceeds were designated to pass directly to the separate trusts for Shannon and Leah, not through Thomas's trust. The court affirmed the probate court's orders, concluding that the IRA proceeds were correctly excluded from Pamela's omitted spouse's share. View "Reich v. Reich" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a beneficiary of the Carolyn Patricia Young Family Trust, alleged that the defendants, the trust protector and trustee, were conspiring to withhold trust funds improperly. The alleged conspiracy aimed to preserve assets for the trustee, who is also a residuary beneficiary. Plaintiff sought an ex parte application to suspend the defendants' powers and appoint an interim trustee.The Superior Court of Orange County granted the ex parte application, issuing a minute order that suspended the powers of the trustee and trust protector, appointed a private professional fiduciary as interim trustee, required the interim trustee to post a bond, set a review hearing, and prohibited the interim trustee from using trust assets for compensation without prior court authorization. Defendants appealed this order.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that orders suspending trustees and appointing interim trustees in probate court are not directly appealable. The court emphasized that such orders are provisional remedies, not final orders, and thus do not fall under the categories of appealable orders listed in the Probate Code sections 1300 and 1304. The court also found that the defendants lacked standing to appeal the portions of the order imposing a bond requirement and prohibiting the interim trustee from using trust assets for compensation without prior court authorization, as these did not injuriously affect the defendants' rights or interests in an immediate and substantial way.The court dismissed the appeal and denied the plaintiff's motion for sanctions, although it expressed concern over the conduct of the defendants' counsel. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' first request for judicial notice, granted the plaintiff's request for judicial notice, and denied the defendants' second request for judicial notice. View "Young v. Hartford" on Justia Law

Silvia Villareal created a revocable living trust in 2005, which she amended in 2018 and again in 2019. The trust named her three children, Leticia Linzer, Arturo Villareal, and Sonia Godoy, as beneficiaries, each to receive a one-third interest in her home. The 2018 amendment suggested, but did not mandate, that the property be kept within the family. The 2019 amendment, however, imposed mandatory conditions that any sale of the property be limited to $100,000 and only to the siblings, with flexible payment terms.After Silvia's death in 2020, Arturo and Sonia petitioned the Los Angeles County Superior Court to determine whether the 2019 amendment's conditions were mandatory and, if so, to declare them void as an unreasonable restraint on alienation under California Civil Code section 711. The probate court found the conditions mandatory and void, ruling that they unreasonably restricted the siblings' ability to sell their interests at fair market value. The court declared the 2019 amendment void and upheld the 2018 restatement as the operative trust document.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the probate court's decision, holding that section 711 applies to testamentary instruments and prohibits unreasonable restraints on alienation. The court found that the 2019 amendment's conditions were indeed an unreasonable restraint, as they significantly devalued the property and limited the market to only two potential buyers. The court also rejected Leticia's argument that the 2019 amendment created a new testamentary trust, finding no clear intent or adherence to the procedures for establishing a separate trust. Thus, the 2018 restatement remained the operative trust document. View "Godoy v. Linzner" on Justia Law

Dr. Laura Dean Head passed away in 2013, leaving behind her sisters, Della Hamlin and Helaine Head. Shortly before her death, Dr. Head executed a trust naming her former student and friend, Zakiya Jendayi, as the trustee and sole beneficiary. In 2020, Hamlin and Head petitioned the probate court to invalidate the trust, alleging undue influence, lack of capacity, and forgery. After a 17-day bench trial, the court found that Jendayi had exerted undue influence over Dr. Head and invalidated the trust.The Alameda County Superior Court held a bench trial and found that the trust was presumptively the product of undue influence. The court shifted the burden to Jendayi to disprove undue influence, which she failed to do. The court found that Dr. Head was vulnerable and dependent on Jendayi, who used her position to unduly benefit from the trust. The court invalidated the trust and ordered the assets transferred to the special administrator of Dr. Head’s estate.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, holding that Hamlin and Head, as potential intestate heirs, had standing to contest the trust. The court found substantial evidence supporting the probate court’s application of the presumption of undue influence and its finding that Jendayi unduly influenced Dr. Head. The court also rejected Jendayi’s claims of judicial bias and found no deficiencies in the probate court’s statement of decision that warranted reversal. The appellate court concluded that the probate court did not err in its findings and affirmed the judgment. View "Hamlin v. Jendayi" on Justia Law