|
A Compendium of Recent Cases |
|
Brought to you by LACBA's Trusts & Estates Section * Volume IV, Number 3 * November 2008 |
|
www.lacba.org * Contact Us * Join the T & E Section * Archived Issues |
|
Visit the Trusts and Estates Section Web page. |
IN THIS ISSUE:
|
|
|
Settlement Services: Sometimes Our Clients Just Need to Talk We encourage practitioners to take advantage of the settlement conference services for probate matters at the Central Courthouse on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays. This program is most beneficial if you and opposing counsel bring your clients to the hearing. At the hearing, let the clerk and the judge know that you would like to meet with the settlement officer. Sometimes clients just want the opportunity to have a third party hear them before they have to make a difficult decision. Even if settlement does not occur, participating in the informal mediation may allow your clients to determine what issues need to be addressed before they can reach a settlement in a future formal mediation or other settlement discussion. For more details of the settlement program, visit Probate Settlement Officers Panel, a link from the section's main Web page. Please send your suggestions and practice tips to: webmaster@lacba.org. Thank you for your participation in the activities of the Trusts & Estates Section. |
A Compendium of Recent Cases
Cases appear in chronological order, with the oldest case appearing first.
-Trusts and Estates-
Where purchaser defaulted on agreement to buy property from estate and property was resold at a lower price, Probate Code Sec. 10350(e)(1) authorized probate court to award estate damages in an amount equal to difference between defaulting and successful purchase prices. Because estate was entitled to retain defaulted buyer's deposit as statutory award for damages, it made no legal difference that deposit amount covered both estate's interest in property and that of co-owner because Sec.10350(e)(1) did not authorize a pro rata share of damages based on sellers' respective interests in the property.
Estate of Felder - filed October 9, 2008, Second District, Div. Five
Cite as 2008 SOS 5706
Full Text Back to Top
-Government Law-
Where estate's property escheated, state was required to pay interest at one of two statutorily determined interest rates set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1540(c) for entire time period that unclaimed property was held by state. Even if estate had a cognizable property right to interest earned by escheated property and this property was "taken" by state, no further compensation as due to estate because when estate abandoned its property, estate forfeited any right to interest earned by that property.
Turnacliff v. Westly - filed October 15, 2008
Cite as 07-15287
Full Text Back to Top
-Trusts and Estates-
Where trust beneficiary brought a "safe harbor" petition to determine whether he could seek a distribution from the trust without violating no-contest clause, and trustee filed a response affirmatively pleading that the proposed action would violate the clause, beneficiary’s subsequent purported withdrawal of the petition without prejudice was ineffective.
Schwartz v. Schwartz - filed October 16, 2008, Fifth District
Cite as 2008 SOS 5744
Full Text Back to Top
|
Los Angeles County Bar Association
2008-09 Trusts and Estates Section Newsletter |
| TRUSTS & ESTATES SECTION REVIEW Amy L. McEvoy, Co-Editor, David C. Nelson, Co-Editor, Nelson J. Handy, Co-Editor
|