Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

Jonathan Starr brought a probate petition challenging the actions of M. Thomas Ashbrook, who was acting as the trustee of the revocable trust of Jonathan’s father, Arnold Starr. The petition alleged that Ashbrook had wasted and misused trust assets by pursuing a meritless petition for instructions and using trust assets to fund litigation against Jonathan Starr and his brothers. Ashbrook responded by bringing a special motion to strike the surcharge cause of action pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court concluded the allegations of the surcharge cause of action did not arise out of activity protected by section 425.16 and denied Ashbrook’s anti-SLAPP motion. Ashbrook appealed the order denying his anti-SLAPP motion. The Court of Appeal concurred with the trial court that the alleged waste and misuse of trust assets was the injury-producing activity allegedly giving rise to Ashbrook’s liability for breach of trust. Because the surcharge cause of action did not arise out of allegations of protected activity the Court affirmed the order denying Ashbrook’s anti-SLAPP motion without addressing the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis. View "Starr v. Ashbrook" on Justia Law

Defendants-appellants Russell Davis, Ian Herzog, Evan Marshall, Debra Wear, Gloria Tedesco, and Stephen Carpenter appealed a March 22, 2021 trial court order, which denied each of their special motions to strike (anti- SLAPP) the corresponding applications for elder abuse restraining orders (EARO) filed by plaintiff-appellant Laura White (White), as cotrustee of the Thomas S. Tedesco Living Trust (the living trust), to protect her father, conservatee Thomas Tedesco (Thomas) from defendants’ concerted efforts to isolate and unduly influence him to change his estate plan for their benefit. White cross-appealed the same order denying her request to hear the EARO applications prior to the anti-SLAPP motions. Defendants contended that: (1) White had no standing to request the EAROs because she was unable to establish that she was either a trustee of the living trust or fiduciary of Thomas; (2) the lower court erred in assuming the conservatorship was valid and White was a cotrustee of the living trust, and relying on the Court of Appeal's opinions affirming the probate court’s actions; (3) the court erred by denying defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions; (4) their assistance in asserting Thomas’s civil and testamentary rights cannot be restrained by an EARO to prevent them from seeking a judicial determination that will resolve the very issue raised by the EARO; (5) the EAROs had to be stricken because they interfered with Orange County’s exclusive subject matter jurisdiction; and (6) the court erred in proceeding without joinder by Thomas. White asserted Wear’s anti-SLAPP motion was moot given the Court of Appeal's affirmance of the EARO against her, the anti-SLAPP motions were properly denied, and defendants’ remaining contentions lacked merit. In her cross-appeal, she argued the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to rule on her applications before deciding the anti-SLAPP motions. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying each special motion to strike; however, it concluded the trial court abused its discretion in failing to utilize its case management tools and prevent a delay in hearing the merits of the applications for EAROs by failing to either: (1) revisit the prior denial of temporary EAROs and grant temporary relief pending the resolution of defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions (through appeal); or (2) decide the applications and the anti-SLAPP motions at the same time. Thus, the matter was remanded for the trial court to proceed to trial on White’s applications for EAROs regarding all defendants except Wear, against whom an EARO was already in place. View "White v. Davis, et al." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether Judith ("Judy") Scherber was an intestate heir of ("Decedent") Loch David Crane, who died in 2018 while living in San Diego County. Judy’s petition was based on her relationship with Charles Bloodgood (Charles). In 1951, Charles and his wife Frances Bloodgood (Frances) took two-year-old Judy into their home after she was abandoned by her birth parents, and for the duration of their lifetimes, held Judy out as their own child while domiciled in Indiana. Applying California law to undisputed facts jointly submitted by the parties, the probate court found Judy was the presumed natural child of Charles under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA); that Shannon Wehsener (Shannon), a first cousin of Decedent who had opposed Judy’s petition, had failed to proffer any facts to rebut that presumption; and that Judy therefore was Decedent’s heir through Charles, based on Charles openly holding her out as his own child during his lifetime. Shannon argued the probate court erred in applying California law to determine the existence of a natural parental relationship between Charles and Judy. Shannon argued the court instead should have applied Indiana law, where that relationship was effectuated. And unlike California, Indiana law did not recognize the existence of a natural parent and child relationship for purposes of determining heirship when a parent openly holds out a child as that parent’s own. Shannon further argued that even if California law applied and Charles was the presumed natural parent of Judy, that presumption was rebutted purely on the basis of public policy. Exercising independent review, the California Court of Appeal concluded California law applied in determining parentage between Judy and Charles for purposes of intestate succession. Based on the undisputed facts, the Court further concluded clear and convincing evidence supported the probate court’s finding that Charles was the presumed natural parent of Judy under the UPA; that Shannon did not meet her burden to produce clear and convincing evidence to rebut that presumption; and that the presumption could not be rebutted purely on the grounds of public policy. View "Wehsener v. Jernigan" on Justia Law

The court appointed a guardian ad litem for two minor trust beneficiaries. A few years later, but before the beneficiaries reached 18, they sought the removal of the guardian ad litem. The guardian responded by filing a motion to disqualify the beneficiaries' attorney, which the trial court granted. The beneficiaries appealed.By the time the case reached the Second Appellate District, the beneficiaries had reached the age of majority. Thus, The Second Appellate District reversed the trial court's order disqualifying the counsel of two trust beneficiaries, finding that the issue was moot. The court explained that there is no longer statutory authority permitting the appointment of a guardian ad litem because the beneficiaries are no longer minors. View "Chui v. Chui" on Justia Law

Parker’s daughters sought the appointment of a conservator of their mother’s estate. Schwarcz, a professional fiduciary, was appointed as temporary conservator of Parker’s estate. Following mediation, Parker, her daughters, and Schwarcz entered into an agreement that provided for a less restrictive alternative. The court approved the settlement and terminated the temporary conservatorship. Parker’s counsel emailed Schwarcz’s counsel, requesting “all communications" between Schwarcz and anyone regarding Parker’s estate. Schwarcz’s counsel refused to comply. Parker filed a “Petition for Return of Property,” under Probate Code section 850, seeking communications between Schwarcz and any non-attorney, communications between Schwarcz and her attorney with or without copying or otherwise including another person, and documents related to the temporary conservatorship.The court of appeal affirmed the denial of Parker’s petition as not authorized by Probate Code 850. “Personal property” as used in section 850 does not encompass communications and documents from the administration of her temporary conservatorship estate. The section's legislative history and the historical circumstances around the enactment of its predecessor statutes do not suggest the Legislature intended section 850 to be used by a claimant to obtain communications and documents generated by a temporary conservator. View "Parker v. Schwarcz" on Justia Law

Respondent Neumiller & Beardslee filed a renewal request for a 2008 judgment and identified Estate Administrator Audrey Douglas as the judgment debtor without stating she was named in her role as the administrator of an estate as set forth in the original judgment. When it discovered this, respondent filed a motion to correct the error. The trial court granted that motion and corrected the judgment nunc pro tunc. Appellant Joanna Douglas-Dorsey, who was a beneficiary of the estate argued on appeal the trial court erred in correcting that error because it was not a clerical error. Remembering the “law respects form less than substance” the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Estate of Douglas" on Justia Law

Jones established a trust, naming his daughter (Spencer) as successor trustee. The property was the trust’s principal asset. Jones later married Grays-Jones, but did not amend the trust. Jones contracted to sell the property to CDI for $13.6 million. Jones died shortly thereafter. Months later, Grays-Jones petitioned for an interest in Jones’s estate as an omitted spouse. While the property was still in escrow, Grays-Jones and Spencer, as trustee, agreed the trust “shall pay to [Grays-Jones] a total of $3,000,000 . . . as her full and final settlement of [Grays-Jones’s] interest in the Estate. Payment of said amount shall be paid ... out of the escrow from the sale of the [property].” Grays-Jones would move out of Jones’s residence in exchange for $150,000, which would constitute “an advance against the total settlement.” A stipulated judgment incorporated the settlement. Spencer, as trustee, paid Grays-Jones $150,000; Grays-Jones moved out of Jones’s residence. The sale of the property fell through. Spencer did not pay Grays-Jones the outstanding $2.85 million.Grays-Jones sought to enforce the stipulated judgment, alleging Spencer frustrated the sale of the property. She requested the appointment of a temporary trustee to sell the residence and property. The trial court denied the petition, finding the settlement agreement unenforceable because the sale was a condition precedent. The court of appeal reversed. The settlement agreement contained a condition precedent as to the method of payment, but Spencer’s independent promise to pay $3 million is enforceable and remains payable upon the property’s sale. View "Estate of Jones" on Justia Law

Ramsey Walter El Wardani died intestate in 2016 and was survived by his wife Janine and daughter from a previous marriage, Alexandria (Ali). Four years into a protracted probate dispute between Janine and Ali, the court removed Janine as court-appointed administrator of Ramsey’s estate. It deemed her ineligible to serve in that role because it found that she was not a United States (U.S.) resident as required by California Probate Code section 8402(a)(4). Emphasizing her numerous ties to California, Janine appealed her removal as administrator of her deceased husband’s estate. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding the trial court reasonably rejected her claim to U.S. residency despite those ties. Janine sold her home in California and moved with Ramsey to Mexico in 2014 intending to retire there. She remained in Mexico “full time” for two years until Ramsey’s death. Although she returned to California for visits thereafter, she did not relocate or plan to move back to the U.S. until the probate case was over. View "Estate of El Wardani" on Justia Law

King is Jimmy's former spouse and mother of his minor child. Jimmy was killed in a California helicopter crash. His sole heirs were his spouse, Wasdin, and his minor child. Jimmy and King were residents of Alabama. An Alabama probate court named King as the personal representative of Jimmy’s estate. King filed a California wrongful death suit. Wasdin moved to intervene; Code Civil Procedure 387(d)(1)(B)) provides that a court “shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene” if “[t]he person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction" and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair that person’s ability to protect that interest unless that person’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties. King asserted the one-action rule, which precludes an heir from filing an independent action after a decedent’s personal representative has filed suit for wrongful death, and that any complaints about the inadequacy of her representation of Wasdin’s interest should be addressed by the Alabama probate court.The court of appeal reversed the denial of Wasdin’s motion. An heir must be granted leave to intervene as a matter of right so long as the statutory requirements for intervention have been met. The trial court denied the motion on the incorrect basis that there was no legal authority allowing an heir to intervene in a wrongful death action filed by the personal representative and failed to consider whether the heir’s interests were adequately represented by the personal representative. View "King v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co." on Justia Law

Defendant was a beneficiary and trustee of a family trust. In 2018, Defendant provided Plaintiff, Defendant's daughter, and the other remainder beneficiaries with a notice stating: "[y]ou may not bring an action to contest the Trust more than 120 days from the date this notification by the trustee is served upon you." Approximately 230 days after Plaintiff received this notice, she filed a petition seeking to invalidate a previous amendment to the trust. Defendant, citing a no-contest clause contained in the trust instrument, claimed that Plaintiff's litigation resulted in her disinheritance. The trial court agreed and Plaintiff appealed.On appeal, the Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court. The court rejected Plaintiff's claim that untimely litigation does not constitute a "direct contest without probable cause." More specifically, Plaintiff argued that the fact her litigation was untimely does not automatically render it unsupported by probable cause, and that the court should review the merits of her challenge. The court explained that Plaintiff's litigation was a "direct contest" and that, solely because it was untimely, it lacked probable cause. View "Meiri v. Shamtoubi" on Justia Law