In which the First District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on August 27, 2025, that an attorney who was terminated by trust beneficiaries cannot recover a contingency fee by suing the successor trustee, the trustee's counsel, or the counsel's law firm; the demurrer to the complaint is sustained because the fee agreement creates no enforceable lien on the trust assets and the plaintiff fails to state a claim for intentional interference, conversion, or money-had-and-received.

In which the Second District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on August 25, 2025, that the probate court's removal of Walter Martin as trustee was valid because the earlier non-appealable appeal did not stay the underlying probate proceeding.

In which the Second District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on August 25, 2025, that the probate court's removal of Walter Martin as trustee was supported by substantial evidence and no abuse of discretion was shown.

In which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on August 22, 2025, that a trial court abuses its discretion when it permits and gives evidentiary weight to oral objections from a party who has failed to file the required written objections, even if the court later claims to have considered those statements.

In which the First District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on August 15, 2025, that a guardian ad litem who is appointed under Code of Civil Procedure section 372 may seek reimbursement of reasonable expenses from a settlement fund under Probate Code section 3600 and 3601, and that the trial court erred by refusing to consider such a claim.

In which the First District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on August 15, 2025, that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in matters relating to the conservatorship.

In which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on August 14, 2025, that a trustee of a revocable inter-vivos trust has standing to sue to enforce promissory notes that were assigned to the trust, and that no Heggstad petition or probate proceeding is required to obtain court permission to pursue such claims.

In which the First District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on August 13, 2025, that the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence.