Source: https://californiaestatetrust.com/2020/01/30/barefoot-v-jennings-supreme-court-of-california-january-23-2020-standing-under-cal-probate-code-%C2%A717200-and-more/?shared=email&msg=fail
Timestamp: 2020-02-26 20:47:47
Document Index: 424441140

Matched Legal Cases: ['§17200', '§17200', '§17200', '§17200', '§17200', '§17200', '§17200', '§850', '§850', '§859', '§850', '§850', '§17200', '§17200', '§850']

Barefoot v. Jennings, Supreme Court of California (January 23, 2020), Standing Under Cal. Probate Code §17200, and More . . . | California Trust, Estate, Probate, Power of Attorney, Conservatorship, Elder & Dependent Adult Abuse, Discrimination (Age/Disability), Nursing Home & Care, Mental Capacity, Undue Influence, Fiduciary Duty & Conflict of Interest Litigation & Contentious Administrations - Important Issues, Situations, News, Cases & Laws - Collaborating With Colleagues - David Tate, Esq. - California
Barefoot v. Jennings, Supreme Court of California (January 23, 2020), Standing Under Cal. Probate Code §17200, and More . . .
Posted on January 30, 2020 by David Tate, Esq.
Barefoot v. Jennings, Supreme Court of California (January 23, 2020), S251574, 2020 WL 372523
Summary and Holding: (1) Settlor Maynord executed eight amendments (amendment numbers 17 through 24) to the trust through which petitioner’s/plaintiff’s share of the trust as set out in the 16th amendment was eliminated; (2) the Court held that petitioner/plaintiff, an ex-beneficiary, has standing to bring an action under Cal. Probate Code §17200 to challenge the validity of the trust amendments where she alleges that the amendments that disinherited her were invalid because Maynord was incompetent to make the amendments; the amendments were the product of respondents’/defendants’ undue influence; and the amendments were the product of respondents’/defendants’ fraud; (3) §17200 allows a trustee or a beneficiary to petition the Court; (4) petitioner/plaintiff had standing under §17200 because although she is not currently a beneficiary, she would or will be a beneficiary if her allegations are proven.
The following are my initial comments:
I don’t understand why the Court went down this path – petitioner already had standing to challenge or contest the trust amendments under her three theories (lack of mental capacity, undue influence, and fraud) – §17200 wasn’t necessary to provide petitioner with standing. Nevertheless, the holding is as it is.
Allegations of lack of mental capacity, undue influence, and fraud can or might trigger a no contest clause – does bringing the action under §17200 in some manner change (lower or eliminate) that argument? See also footnote 3 in this regard.
It is interesting that since petitioner was provided benefits under the 16th amendment, she had to argue that the 17th through 24th amendments are all invalid.
The Court’s decision is not based on the Legislative intent – I would have thought that it would be, or at least that the Court would have thought that the Legislative intent would be relevant.
In its decision the Court specifically declines to discuss or interpret Cal. Probate Code §850. That would have been an interesting discussion as I have had cases involving allegations pertaining to §850 (and §859) and when someone has standing or not – there is almost no case law on this topic although there is Legislative history. For example, one provision of §850 provides that in particular circumstances a trustee or an interested person has standing to bring a petition – but absent case law, I would not view “interested person” under §850 as being the same as “beneficiary” in the context of the Barefoot v. Jennings discussion under §17200.
The Court’s decision is of interest for additional reasons, including, for example, the Court’s affirmation that in construing a trust the Court’s primary duty is to give effect to the settlor’s intentions, and the Probate Court has extremely broad power and authority to apply equitable and legal principles in order to assist its function as a Probate Court, and is given broad jurisdiction over practically all controversies that might arise between trustees and those claiming to be beneficiaries of the trust (including to preserve trust assets and the rights of all purported beneficiaries while the Court adjudicates the standing issue).
We can expect that more decisions will be forthcoming relating to the impact of the holding in Barefoot v. Jennings, potential issues that I have discussed above, standing under §17200, and the entirety of §850, et seq.
You can click on the following link for a copy of Barefoot v. Jennings Barefoot v Jennings California Supreme Court
This entry was posted in will, estate, trust, elder, contest, fiduciary, decedent, intent, disability, conservatorship, elder abuse, elder protection, trustee, beneficiary, executor and tagged Barefoot v. Jennings, beneficiary, elder abuse, executor, fraud, mental capacity, probate, probate litigation, trust, trust litigation, trustee, undue influence, will. Bookmark the permalink.
← New Case Holding: Will Provisions Override Account Ownership Provisions
Status Of The California State Auditor’s Recommendations To Improve Oversight Of Substandard Nursing Home (SNF) Quality Of Care – Nothing Has Been Implemented? – And What About ESG And/Or GRC? →
What Can A Nonprofit Chair Do To Fix A Dysfunctional Board – by Dr. Eugene Fram auditcommitteeupdate.com/2020/02/26/wha… https://t.co/qfMHF4pagm 4 hours ago
5 Financing Mistakes Small-Caps Make – from Adam Epstein and the Small Cap Institute auditcommitteeupdate.com/2020/02/25/5-f… https://t.co/tDlWn2AZVh 4 hours ago
California Office Of Attorney General – Guide For Charities – Note, You Will Want To Read This If You Are A Nonprof… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 23 hours ago
2020 governance outlook ( corpgov.law.harvard.edu) – with Tate’s comments added auditcommitteeupdate.com/2020/02/24/202… https://t.co/gEpj3ED4oj 1 day ago
Summary of California Trustee and Beneficiary Responsibilities and Rights, and Handling Contentious Trust Administr… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 1 day ago