Source: https://californiaestatetrust.com/tag/estate/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 15:50:52+00:00

Document:
Posted on January 26, 2019 by David Tate, Esq.
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.
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.
Posted on October 13, 2018 by David Tate, Esq.
As I was listening to the podcast I started thinking about the usefulness of the GrandPad in terms of risk management or enterprise risk management (ERM), and legal duties, responsibilities and rights, in the context of nursing homes for example. Is a product like the GrandPad something that nursing homes should (or must?) provide or make available to their residents, to make it easier for a resident to safely stay in touch with family and friends, for socialization, for mental stimulation and to help prevent decline in mental capabilities, and for personal daily living enjoyment?
Posted on April 26, 2018 by David Tate, Esq.
Time: 6:00 P.M. – 7:45 P.M.
I will be presenting a discussion about California trustee and beneficiary responsibilities and rights, and contentious trust administrations on May 24, 2018, from 6 p.m. to 7:45 p.m., at the Royse Law Firm, PC, at 149 Commonwealth Drive, Ste. 1001, Menlo Park, CA 94025, (650) 813-9700. The presentation is free. At the bottom of this post I have provided a link to register if you would like to attend. Please also tell other people who would be interested. The presentation and handout are detailed, but the discussion is primarily directed toward non-lawyers and other people who are not experts in the subject areas.
Additional select trust, estate, elder, and planning issues depending on the attendees, such as conservatorships, elder abuse, powers of attorney, mental capacity, transfers to prohibited people, when a trustor dies, planning, etc.
Posted on November 19, 2017 by David Tate, Esq.
Below, at the bottom of this blog, I have pasted a video at a nursing home that I came across on Yahoo. First some disclaimers – by now we should all be aware that watching snippets or portions of a video does not tell the whole story, knowing the whole story could present a different situation, we don’t know all that was said or that occurred, and, of course, I have no personal knowledge of these events, but am simply passing this along.
That having been said, the video and information presented are disturbing.
At her deposition the supervising nurse testified that what occurred is different than what the video shows, and acknowledges or admits this, and she admits that the nurses or nursing assistants on scene acted wrongfully and should have been fired if the truth had been known.
If not for the video the truth would not have come to light.
An issue arose whether it was legal to install a secret video recording device in the resident’s room. It is my understanding that a nursing home resident is a resident, not a patient, and that the nursing home, and their particular room is their home.
The lawyer mentions that he cannot say anything about the settlement agreement with the nursing home. In California, except in limited circumstances, Code of Civil Procedure §2017.310 makes a confidential settlement agreement unlawful if the factual foundation presents a case of elder or dependent adult abuse.
California also has a criminal elder abuse statute at Penal Code §368. I’m not saying that the acts in the video were criminal – based on what is being shown, in a court of law more likely the acts would be considered medical malpractice in nature, but could still be civil elder abuse.
The nursing home would raise a whole host of defenses to liability, including, for example, possibly, that the plaintiffs or prosecution cannot show with evidence that the actions of the nursing home actually caused the resident’s death. But there also could be issues about burden of proof, and it is possible that the burden of showing no wrongful conduct could be shifted to the defendant nursing home.
We could go on and on with this. There is a lot more that I would like to know, including, for example, about the policies and procedures of the nursing home at the time of the incident, and about the investigation that the nursing home did at the time of the incident and whether that investigation, if any was done, was sufficient and performed appropriately and in good faith?
I would also like to know about the “new management” of the nursing home, and about current policies and procedures, and whether the events of this occurrence were presented to the public or kept secret by the state nursing home regulatory authorities.
These stories and what occurs later in time get buried by the now constant 24 hour news and social media cycle – do you remember the hurricane IRMA story about the 8 nursing home residents who died because the air conditioning went out, but then weren’t transferred by the nursing home to a safe facility (such as, for example, possibly the nearby hospital) – well . . . what has happened since that time in the investigation, and so that something like that will not occur again?
That’s all for now. I’m David Tate. I’m a California litigation attorney. I also handle governance and risk management. You need to consult with an attorney or appropriate professional about your situation. This blog post and/or video or audio is not an advertisement or solicitation for services inside or outside of California. Thanks for listening or reading.
Posted on October 7, 2017 by David Tate, Esq.
The following is a brief discussion about a new California case in which the court held that a party filing a petition in probate to enforce a no contest clause triggers the anti-SLAPP statute. If you have never been involved in the anti-SLAPP statute, it is a big deal. The case is Urick v. Urick, California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Case No. B278257 (October 5, 2017).
Summary. Filing a petition for instructions in probate, claiming that a trustee or beneficiary had triggered a no contest clause by filing her prior petition to reform or modify a trust, is a claim that triggers prong one of the California anti-SLAPP statute Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §425.16, which means that the party seeking to claim and enforce that the no contest clause was triggered must be prepared to satisfy prong two of the anti-SLAPP statute which requires him to sufficiently establish a reasonable possibility of prevailing on the claim that the no contest clause was triggered and violated.
Takeaway. If you bring a claim to enforce a no contest clause based on an opposing party’s prior petition filed in probate, you must be prepared at the time of your filing to establish to the court, based on evidence and declarations, that you have a reasonable possibility of prevailing on your claim that the other party had triggered and violated the no contest clause.
Urick is also interesting for the court’s discussion whether the previously filed petition to reform or modify the trust triggered the no contest clause, including the discussion whether that previously filed petition was filed by the petitioner as a beneficiary of the trust or as the trustee of the trust and whether there was really a distinction that mattered under the facts of the case.
Other thoughts about the anti-SLAPP statute. I have been involved in Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §425.16 motions. It is my opinion that it is a deeply flawed statute except possibly in really obvious and clear situations and in those cases the party who has those defenses has other remedies such as a demurrer, motion to strike, or motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. The anti-SLAPP statute should be revoked or very significantly amended and limited. To add further injury, the filing of an anti-SLAPP motion automatically stays all discovery unless a motion to allow and compel discovery is brought and the court grants that motion – thus, strategically a party might bring an anti-SLAPP motion simply to see if they can prevail even if their arguments and chances of prevailing are not good – and the statute further provides that if a party prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion they are entitled to attorneys’ fees whereas if a party defeats an anti-SLAPP motion the statute does not provide that they are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees. The anti-SLAPP statute is ripe for abuse or use in situations that might be counter to other public or judicial policies, which the court in Urick appeared to recognize, but as the court noted, nevertheless the statute is still on the books and is applicable unless and until the Legislature does something about the statute.

References: v. 
 §2017
 §368
 v. 
 §425
 §425