Trusts & Estates Bulletin

A Compendium of Recent Cases

  Brought to you by LACBA's Trusts & Estates Section  *  Volume III, Number 11-1  *  June 2008 
An E-Publication of the Los Angeles County Bar Association

 www.lacba.org  *  Contact Us  *  Join the T & E Section  *  Archived Issues

IN THIS ISSUE:

Trusts & Estates Bulletin is published monthly by the Trusts & Estates Section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association (LACBA).

David C. Nelson,
Loeb & Loeb LLP, Editor
dnelson@loeb.com

 

Cases appear in chronological order, with the oldest cases appearing first.

-Trusts and Estates-
Where testator’s will contained a no-contest clause but also contained detailed trust provisions that did not contain a separate no-contest clause or incorporate the will’s no-contest clause by reference, and subsequent decree of distribution relating to trust property did not contain or incorporate a no-contest provision, trial court erred in treating decree of distribution as incorporating no-contest clause and in denying beneficiary’s motion for a determination that his "petition for information" with regard to the trust would not constitute a will contest.
     Estate of Herold - filed  May 6, 2008, First District, Div. Two
     Cite as 2008 SOS 2701
     Full text                                                                                                                                   Back to Top   

-Family Law-
Trial court did not err in holding that agreement between husband and wife that characterized separate property transferred to a trust as "community property" expressly stated that characterization and ownership of property was being changed, and that transmutation of separate property to community property was effective notwithstanding language that purported to qualify, limit, or condition transfer.
     re Marriage of Holtmann - filed  May 12, 2008, Second District, Div. Six
     Cite as 2008 SOS 2785
     Full text                                                                                                                                    Back to Top  

-Trusts and Estates-
Where trial court held that appellant had violated the no-contest clause contained in an irrevocable trust without addressing another revocable trust that contained the same no-contest clause language, and reconsidered and revised the decision so that the appellant was no longer a beneficiary of either trust, the court acted within its inherent authority to reconsider a prior interim order to make corrections because a court order that does not address all of the issues presented to the court and an advance ruling that a particular legal challenge would be a challenge constitute interim orders. Since the court's order was not a final order, res judicata did not require finding that appellant was a beneficiary of the revocable trust.
     Montegani v. Johnson - filed  May 13, 2008, Fifth District
     Cite as 2008  SOS 2831

     Full text                                                                                                                                   Back to Top