CALIFORNIA COURTS
Emeziem & Others v. Mark Unger
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.
Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of Rex Martin
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.
Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of Rex Martin
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.
Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of Martha A
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.
Conservatorship of the Estate of You Wei Dong
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.
Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of Dong
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.
Ukkestad
Clark v. Smith
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.
Barrow v. Holmes
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.
Barrow v. Holmes
Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of R.J.
In which the Fifth District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on August 13, 2025, that R.
Garcia v. Garcia
In which the Third District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on August 13, 2025, that the trial court's findings of undue influence, lack of capacity, and that Benjamin Garcia predeceased his mother--thereby triggering Probate Code section 259 and 859 and imposing double damages--are supported by substantial evidence and therefore are affirmed on appeal.
Sweetwyne P. Barrow v. Rhonda Holmes
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.
Conservatorship of Anne S.
In which the Second District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on July 10, 2025, that only persons who meet the statutory definition of an "interested person" under Probate Code section 1820 may file a petition for conservatorship, and a neighbor with no substantive relationship to the proposed conservatee lacks standing to do so.
Estate of Boyajian
In which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on July 07, 2025, that the probate court correctly applied the law in administering the estate.
In re Bradshaw
In which the California Supreme Court held, in an opinion filed on July 03, 2025, that the lower court's ruling was proper under California law.
Amundson v. Catello
In which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on June 03, 2025, that the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Goebner v. Super. Ct.
In which the First District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on April 30, 2025, that the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Herren v. George S.
In which the First District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on March 04, 2025, that a petition for an elder-abuse restraining order may be granted under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act even though the protected person's capacity has not yet been formally adjudicated, so long as the court finds substantial evidence of financial abuse.
Estate of Tarlow
In which the Second District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on February 27, 2025, that the probate court correctly applied the law in administering the estate.
Packard v. Packard
In which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on February 24, 2025, that a petition seeking construction or reformation of a trust amendment is not a "trust contest" under Probate Code section 16061.
Godoy v. Linzner
In which the Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on November 13, 2024, that the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Trotter v. Van Dyck
In which the Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on June 27, 2024, that the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Luo v. Volokh
In which the Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on June 25, 2024, that the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Cohen v. Super. Ct.
In which the Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on June 20, 2024, that the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Key v. Tyler
In which the Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on May 28, 2024, that the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Hernandez v. Sohnen Enterprises
In which the Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on May 22, 2024, that the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Harrod v. Country Oaks Partners, LLC
Conservatorship of T.B.
Haggerty v. Thornton
Newman v. Casey
Estate of Flores
Hamilton v. Green
Robinson v. Gutierrez
Spears v. Spears
Estate of Martino
Colvis v. Binswanger
Stadel Art Museum v. Mulvihill
Bailey v. Bailey
Estate of Sanchez
The Law Firm of Fox and Fox v. Chase Bank
Dupree v. CIT Bank
L.A. Unified School Dist. v. Super. Ct.
Estate of Berger
McGee v. State Dept. of Health Care Services
Diaz v. Zuniga
Conservatorship of Tedesco
Pool-O'Connor v. Guadarrama
A.F. v. Jeffrey F.
Malear v. State of California
Zahnleuter v. Mueller
Algo-Heyres v. Oxnard Manor
Estate of Franco
Starr v. Ashbrook
White v. Davis
Wehsener v. Jernigan
Chui v. Chui
Holt v. Brock
Adoption of M.R.
Limon v. Circle K Stores
Parker v. Schwarcz
In re E.L.
Guardianship of A.H.
Maleti v. Wickers
Estate of El Wardani
Logan v. Country Oaks Partners
Guardianship of Saul H.
Meiri v. Shamtoubi
Royals v. Lu
Tukes v. Richard
K.R. v. Superior Court
Bruno v. Hopkins
Welch v. Welch
In re Z.O.
People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc.
Estate of Eskra
Autonomous Region of Narcotics Anon v. Narcotics Anon World Svcs
Torres v. Adventist Health System/West
Marriage of Zucker
Gann v. Acosta
Balistreri v. Balistreri
Riverside County Public Guardian v. Snukst
People v. Financial Casualty & Surety
Conservatorship of Joanne R.
Ring v. Harmon
People v. Washington
Conservatorship of C.O.
People v. Philadelphia Reinsurance Corporation
Li v. Super. Ct.
Humphrey v. Bewley
Guardianship of S.H.R.
Dae v. Traver
Schrage v. Schrage
In re Samuel A.
Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.
Hudson v. Foster
Pearce v. Briggs
Turner v. Victoria
Knapp v. Ginsberg
Conservatorship of Farrant
M.M. v. D.V.
Conservatorship of A.B.
Conservatorship of K.P.
Marriage of Wendt and Pullen
Dunlap v. Mayer
Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group
Breslin v. Breslin
Eyford v. Nord
Conservatorship of Brokken
Boshernitsan v. Bach
Keading v. Keading
Searles v. Archangel
Capra v. Capra
Capra v. Capra
Conservatorship of Navarrete
Conservatorship of O.B.
Jones v. Goodman
Gomez v. Smith
Doe v. Yim
Gomez v. Smith
Buskirk v. Buskirk
Buskirk v. Buskirk
Holley v. Silverado Senior Living Management
Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District
Rallo v. O'Brian
Conservatorship of O.B.
In re Brace
Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.
Cundall v. Mitchell-Clyde
People v. Braum
In People v. Braum, the court upheld the City's civil judgments against Daniel Braum without violating double jeopardy or excessive fines clauses.
Estate of Eimers
In Estate of Eimers, the California probate court ruled it cannot alter a holographic will perProbate Code restrictions.
Robertson v. Saadat
The case, Robertson v. Saadat, established that a widow has no legal right to use her late husband's sperm posthumously.
Tubbs v. Berkowitz
In *Tubbs v. Berkowitz*, the court determined that a trustee's exercise of a general power of appointment is non-fiduciary, allowing self-benefit without breach.
Donkin v. Donkin
Donkin v. Donkin establishes that a 2002 amendment doesn't alter irrevocable trust terms, and beneficiaries' petition for accounting isn't time-barred.
Estate of Ashlock
The Court affirmed a \"twice the value\" penalty on $5,148,000 of real estate, holding that the fiduciary had the burden to substantiate their accountings.
Wilkin v. Nelson
The California probate court validated equitable reform of Hanako Nelson's pour-over will, restricting it to separate property assets. This case highlights the strict evidence requirement for testamentary intent.
Roth v. Jelley
In Roth v. Jelley, the court found the 1991 Decree violated Mark Roth's remainder interest without adequate due process, leading to the reversal of the lower court's ruling.
Conservatorship of A.E.
The case establishes that courts must comply with §1825's attendance requirements, emphasizing the procedural rigor in conservatorships.
Barefoot v. Jennings
Barefoot v. Jennings holds that beneficiaries removed from a revocable trust by an amendment can contest its validity if they had standing when the amendment was made.
O.C. v. Super. Ct.
The Court holds that SIJ findings must be based on California law and properly cited on Judicial Council forms. Non-compliant findings are subject to mandamus correction.
Sachs v. Sachs
The court affirms the use of informal records and email confirmations to meet advancement requirements under Probate Code §21135. This decision simplifies probate processes by validating everyday communication for legal purposes.