I. The Los Angeles County Superior Court Probate Court requests that attorneys note the following with regard to their matters before the Probate Court:
• All orders should be submitted in Room 429 on or after the date when the matter is heard and granted or where court orders were made at that hearing. Orders submitted for future hearing dates will be returned or disposed of (see below).
• All orders must be submitted with a means to be returned (i.e. self-addressed stamped envelope, buck slip, Bond Services stamp, Newspaper Service Card)
• As of 7/8/13, there will no longer be a "MISC ORDER BASKET" in Room 429. The basket currently contains orders that have no envelope or attorney service buck slip - some of these orders have been approved while others have been rejected. As of 7/8/13, any order that does not have a means to be returned will be disposed of.
II. In addition, for attorneys on the Los Angeles Superior Court Probate Court PVP Panel:
The Probate Examiners are now processing the PVP appointments for matters. It seems that there has been an issue where a person to be appointed is not on the current PVP panel list because they did not submit the annual compliance certification and the annual certification of court appointed attorney. Please note that all PVP attorneys need to submit annual documents in order to remain on the PVP panel list.
Trusts and Estates
Petition to determine validity of trust provision was timely where brought within 120 days of notification of the provision by the trustee, as provided by Probate Code Section 16061.8. The law does not require that the petition be served within the 120-day period, only that it be filed within that time and served at least 30 days before the hearing. Trial court abused its discretion in finding petition to be barred by laches where it was filed within the limitations period, and delay in service did not delay administration.
Straley v. Gamble - filed June 25, 2013, Second District, Div. Two
Cite as B240380
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0613//B240380
Trusts and Estates
Beneficiary's action to invalidate trust amendments based on lack of capacity and undue influence was barred by laches where the facts alleged by beneficiary were known to her five years before she filed the action, and the delay was necessarily prejudicial because the settlor had died.
Drake v. Pinkham - filed May 28, 2013, publication ordered June 21, 2013, Third District
Cite as C068747
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0613//C068747
Where married employee--whose retirement benefits were part community property and part his own separate property--exercised his right to purchase additional retirement credit based on premarital military service, paying for it partially with community property, the additional credit--except for the community's contribution to the cost of obtaining the credit--was his separate property.
In re Marriage of Green - filed June 24, 2013
Cite as S203561
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0613//S203561
Appointment of guardian ad litem for parent in dependency proceeding was supported by substantial evidence where evaluator reported that parent was delusional, and her responses to court's questions indicated she was still delusional and did not appreciate her own mental health problems that had led to the commencement of the proceeding. Juvenile court was not required to hold a Marsden-type hearing on mother's request for appointment of substitute counsel in dependency proceeding where the court had a good idea of the reasons for mother's dissatisfaction with counsel, and those reasons did not amount to a claim of ineffectiveness or conflict of interest. Even if the lack of such a hearing was error, the error was not of constitutional dimension and was harmless because it was unlikely to have affected the outcome of the proceedings.
In re M.P. - filed June 21, 2013, Sixth District
Cite as H038640
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0613//H038640
District court did not err in finding tax liens enforceable against properties whose owners of record were the nominees of taxpayers against whom IRS had recorded liens. Doctrine of nominee ownership is well recognized under California law, and totality of circumstances--including lack or inadequacy of consideration, anticipation of litigation at time of transfer, relationship between nominees and owners of record, and continuing use and enjoyment of the property by the transferees--strongly supported finding of nominee ownership in the case.
Fourth Investment LP v. United States- filed June 13, 2013
Cite as 11-56997
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0613//11-56997
Los Angeles County Bar Association
2012-2013 Trusts and Estates Section Newsletter
Kira S. Masteller
Amy L. McEvoy
Stuart D. Zimring
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Jill A. Brousard
Stefanie S. Cutler
Kim D. Doering
Larry S. Dushkes
Kenneth A. Feinfield
Jana Gordon Garrotto
Diane Y. Park
Jacqueline M. Real-Salas
Sandra (Sandy) R. Riley
Myer J. Sankary
Gabrielle A. Vidal
Caroline C. Vincent
William L. Winslow
Liaison, Barristers Section, Lauren C. Liebes
Liaison, Beverly Hills Bar Association, Trudi Schindler
Liaison, County Counsel, Susan Long, Deputy County Counsel
Liaison Public Interest, Yolande P. Erickson
Ex Officio, James R. Birnberg
Ex Officio, Susan Jabkowski
Ex Officio, Thomas H. Kenney
Ex Officio, Matthew W. McMurtrey
Ex Officio, Jonathan L. Rosenbloom
Back to Top