Date: September 13, 2018
Program: 12:00 p.m.-1:15 p.m.
Location: Los Angeles Superior Court

Program Description: This presentation will explore the requirements surrounding dual signature accounts, blocked accounts, and other fiduciary issues concerning banking and finances in decedent's estates, conservatorships, trusts, and more.

Click here for more information and to register

We'd like to thank The Sanborn Team for their sponsorship of our events.

Trusts and Estates Symposium

Date: September 21, 2018
Time: 12:00-4:30 p.m.
Location: Millennium Biltmore Hotel

This year's symposium will explore attorney-client conflict issues that arise within the office of the trustee. A second panel will examine the impact People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 has on hearsay evidence in trust context matters. A third panel will detail the impacts Congress's H.R. 1 Act has on the internal Revenue Code, and recommendations for structuring future estate plans and wealth transfer planning.

More information to come

Limited Conservatorship Training

Date: October 6, 2018
Location: LACBA

More information to come

Aviva K. Bobb PVP Training

Date: November 3, 2018
Location: Sportsmen’s Lodge

More information to come

Brown Bag

Date: November 13, 2018
Location: LA Superior Court

More information to come

Brown Bag

Date: December 11, 2018
Location: LA Superior Court

More information to come

Our congratulations to the Honorable Maria E. Stratton on her recent appointment to Associate Justice, Division Eight of the Second District Court of Appeal. We thank her for her service and wish her all the very best.

Upon Judge Stratton’s confirmation, Judge Michael Small will be assigned to Dept. 5.

For more information, click here.

Publishers List Judicial Council Forms
New and revised (Effective on September 1, 2018)

Reminders from Court

Practitioners are reminded that when you e-file, your papers are not instantaneously in the Court file. It takes at least 1 - 2 days before it can be pulled up by Court staff on the computer. Probate attorneys and examiners release their notes to the bench officers approximately 2 days before your hearing. If you file papers less than 4 days prior to the hearing date, there is a good chance they will not have been seen or reviewed and will not be included in the probate notes. Accordingly, bring conformed copies of late-filed papers to the hearing. It is recommended that you do not appear via CourtCall if you have recently filed papers that you want the Court to consider, so you can bring them with you personally.

Be very careful to select the correct document type from the drop-down menus for e-filing. For example, Proposed Orders are required for ex parte applications, but are not lodged for other types of hearing. Be very careful to select the correct entry on the drop-down menu for Ex Parte Orders, which must accompany your ex parte application.

Practice Tips

• Be sure to show the date of your ex parte hearing on your ex parte applications on the caption page. Do not just reference the date in your Declaration re Ex Parte Notice.
• Consider seeking an order shortening time for your hearing on an ex parte basis rather than requesting the relief be granted outright. Note that ex parte applications still must meet all requirements for bringing an ex parte, including exigent circumstances.
• Now that e-filing has been instituted, declarations of urgency no longer are considered. The Court has a priority system in place. When you have selected the correct drop-down box for Ex Parte Orders, those go on the fast track. Orders confirming sale of real property are considered priorities.
• When you file a new petition, you will be given a hearing date 10 weeks (70 days) from the filing date. Hearings on petitions for probate and to confirm sales of real property, per statute, are set out in 30 days. Hearings are set 7 days from the filing date on petitions for appointment of temporary conservators and guardians, and petitions to establish fact of birth/death/marriage. Please refer to the Los Angeles Superior Court Probate Efiling FAQs on the Los Angeles Superior Court website for further details and information.

A child has no legally cognizable interest in his relationship with his biological parent, and he is not a proper successor in interest to her under California law, where the child was adopted by other parents as an infant.

Wheeler v. City of Santa Clara - filed July 3, 2018
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 16-17375
Full text click here >

A party does not complete timely service where the party serves a notice of motion and motion to compel within the 60-day deadline, but not the supporting papers upon which the motion was based.

Weinstein v. Blumberg (Resch Polster & Berger) - filed July 17, 2018, Second District, Div. One
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 3527
Full text click here >

When a child is allegedly harmed by in utero exposure to hazardous chemicals, the statute of limitations is two years, but it is tolled while the plaintiff is a minor.

Lopez v. Sony Electronics, Inc. - filed July 5, 2018
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 3372
Full text click here >

A trial court abused its discretion in denying a request for a continuance where a party's expert witnesses fell ill less than two weeks before trial.

Padda v. Superior Court (GI Excellence) - filed June 11, 2018, publication ordered July 6, 2018, Fourth District, Div. Two
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 3401
Full text click here >

Family Code Sec. 4504 permits a retroactive child support credit for derivative benefits received by the child when there is no child support arrearage.

Y.H. v. M.H. - filed July 17, 2018, Fourth District, Div. One
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 3521
Full text click here >

A judge considering an involuntary termination of parental rights to an Indian child is not required to consider whether continued legal custody of the child is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. Substantial evidence supported a finding of detriment where a child's parents were addicted to opiates, did not believe that taking prescription medication was substance abuse, and were unable to meet the child's special needs while he was in their care.

In re Collin E. - filed July 2, 2018, publication ordered July 27, 2018, Fourth District, Div. One
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 3705
Full text click here >

The San Diego Superior Court's general policy of not providing official court reporters in most civil trials while permitting privately retained court reporters for parties who can afford to pay for such reporters is inconsistent with the general teaching of prior California in forma pauperis judicial decisions and the public policy of facilitating equal access to the courts. By precluding an indigent litigant from obtaining the attendance of an official court reporter (to which the litigant would be entitled without payment of a fee), while at the same time preserving the right of financially able litigants to obtain an officially recognized pro tempore court reporter, the challenged court policy creates the type of restriction of meaningful access to the civil judicial process that the relevant California in forma pauperis precedents and legislative policy render impermissible.

Jameson v. Desta - filed July 5, 2018
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 3377
Full text click here >

A showing of timely payment of taxes is a precondition to their adverse possession defense. A lump sum payment of several years' worth of delinquent property taxes did not constitute "timely" payment of taxes for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 325(b).

McLear-Gary v. Scott - filed July 11, 2018, First District, Div. Three
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 3457
Full text click here >

Civil Code Sec. 1431.2 mandates allocation of noneconomic damages in direct proportion to a defendant's percentage of fault, regardless of whether the defendant's misconduct is found to be intentional. Where an individual is subject to coercion that is incidental to an unintentional or negligent interference with civil rights, the individual must show some additional coercion, independent of that caused by the negligent interference, to establish a Bane Act violation.

B.B. v. County of Los Angeles - filed July 10, 2018, Second District, Div. Three
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 3463
Full text click here >

The added value that a cable system operator enjoys by virtue of its possession of a right to use a public right-of-way to provide telephone and broadband services is not beyond the reach of a property tax assessment. The fee that a cable system operator paid to use a public right-of-way to provide cable modem services based on a percentage of its revenue from providing those services is not substantial evidence that the fair market value of its right to use the public right to-of-way to provide additional services should be based on the same percentage of revenue for those additional services. While the right to do business cannot be directly taxed, the assessor may, in valuing the right to use the public-rights-of-way, take into consideration the presence of the intangible assets necessary to put the possessory interest to beneficial or productive use in the operation of the cable television system.

Time Warner Cable Inc. v. County of Los Angeles - filed July 19, 2018, Second District, Div. One
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 3607
Full text click here >

•  IRS censures Tax practitioner for willfully mishandling conflicts of interest. Click here for more information

•   Revenue Ruling 2018-17 clarifies that federal income tax withholding under § 3405 and Form 1099-R reporting under § 408 generally apply for the year a payment is made, as required by State law, from an individual retirement arrangement (IRA) to a State unclaimed property fund.
Click here for more information

•  On July 6, 2017 the Board of Equalization (BOE) issued Letters To Assessors (LTA) 2017/027, Changes to the Property Tax Department, to notify county assessors and other interested parties that the Timber Yield Tax Program, the Tax Area Services Section (TASS), the Legal Entity Ownership Program (LEOP), and the Welfare Exemption Program were transferred from the BOE's Property Tax Department to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) effective July 1, 2017.
Click here for more information.