Emeziem & Others v. Mark Unger

Date Filed: August 27, 2025 Case Number: A170497 Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four The Court holds that an attorney who was paid on a contingency basis cannot sue a successor trustee, the trustee’s counsel, or the counsel’s law firm to enforce that fee when the trust assets have already been distributed; the fee agreement creates a private claim against the former beneficiaries, not a lien or equitable interest in the trust estate. Accordingly, the demurrer to the attorney’s claims for intentional interference, conversion, and money-had-and-received is affirmed.

Emeziem & Others v. Mark Unger

Date Filed: August 27, 2025 Case Number: A170497 Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four The Court holds 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. The decision underscores that, in California probate practice, an attorney’s right to fees must be pursued directly against the former clients or through the statutory mechanisms of Probate Code section 15301-15306.

Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of Rex …

Date Filed: August 25, 2025 Case Number: B335353 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two The court holds that the probate court’s removal of Walter Martin as trustee of the Gesner L. Martin Trust is valid because the earlier, non-appealable appeal did not stay the underlying probate proceeding, and the appellate record contains no evidence showing an abuse of discretion or lack of substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s factual findings.

Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of Rex …

Date Filed: August 25, 2025 Case Number: B335353 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two The court holds that the probate court’s removal of Walter Martin as trustee of the Gesner L. Martin Trust is valid because the earlier, non-appealable appeal did not stay the underlying probate proceeding, and the trial court’s factual findings are presumed supported by substantial evidence and not an abuse of discretion.

Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of Martha …

Date Filed: August 22, 2025 Case Number: G063437 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three The Court holds 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. Accordingly, the appellate court reverses the order reducing attorney fees and remands for a new determination based solely on the written objections properly filed.

Conservatorship of the Estate of You Wei Dong

Date Filed: August 15, 2025 Case Number: A169579 Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three The Court holds 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. Accordingly, the appellate court reverses the dismissal and remands for the trial court to determine the amount of Yen’s allowable GAL fees and expenses while affirming the remainder of the settlement order.

Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of Dong

Date Filed: August 15, 2025 Case Number: A169579 Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three The Court holds that, when a court approves a settlement under California Code of Civil Procedure section 372, the probate-code reimbursement provisions of section 3600 and 3601 apply, so a guardian ad litem is entitled to have the trial court consider and award “reasonable expenses” incurred in the performance of his duties. Accordingly, the appellate court reverses the dismissal and remands for the trial court to determine and authorize Yen’s GAL fees and other allowable expenses, while leaving the rest of the compromise order intact.

Ukkestad

Date Filed: August 15, 2025 Case Number: G063394 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three The Court holds that a trustee of a revocable inter-vivos trust has standing to sue to enforce promissory notes that are trust assets, and that no Heggstad petition or probate proceeding is required to obtain court authority to bring the action. By reversing the trial-court judgment, the decision confirms that under both California and Colorado law a trustee may pursue claims on trust property without court approval, reinforcing the trust’s role as a probate-avoidance device.

Clark v. Smith

Date Filed: August 14, 2025 Case Number: G063394 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three The Court holds 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. By reversing the trial-court judgment, the appellate court affirms that trustees may exercise the trust’s enforcement powers under both California and Colorado law without prior court authorization.

Barrow v. Holmes

Date Filed: August 13, 2025 Case Number: A169131 Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One

Barrow v. Holmes

Date Filed: August 13, 2025 Case Number: A169131 Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One The Court holds that a judgment creditor’s failure to file a claim in a decedent’s probate administration does not bar enforcement of a previously recorded judgment lien; the judgment against Martin Holmes remains valid and may be pursued against his property and successors. This decision affirms that a recorded abstract of judgment creates a lien enforceable under Code of Civil Procedure section 683-685 and Probate Code section 9391 without the prerequisite of a probate-court claim, thereby preserving creditors’ rights to collect judgments after a debtor’s death.

Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of R.J.

Date Filed: August 13, 2025 Case Number: F088679 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District The Court holds that R.J.

Garcia v. Garcia

Date Filed: August 13, 2025 Case Number: C098735 Court: California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District The Court holds 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. This decision underscores the appellate court’s deference to a trial court’s factual determinations in probate matters and confirms the enforceability of the statutory penalties for undue-influence violations in trust administration.

Sweetwyne P. Barrow v. Rhonda Holmes

Date Filed: August 13, 2025 Case Number: A169131 Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One

Conservatorship of Anne S.

Date Filed: July 10, 2025 Case Number: B333052 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two The court holds 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. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment dismissing Hank in’s conservatorship petition and its award of sanctions for filing a legally frivolous petition are affirmed.

Estate of Boyajian

In re Bradshaw

Amundson v. Catello

Goebner v. Super. Ct.

Herren v. George S.

Date Filed: March 04, 2025 Case Number: A171257 Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three The Court holds 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. By affirming the trial court’s order against the attorney who obtained a $100,000 retainer from the incapacitated settlor, the decision confirms that capacity determinations are not a prerequisite to obtaining injunctive relief under the Act.

Estate of Tarlow

Packard v. Packard

Date Filed: February 24, 2025 Case Number: D082480 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One The Court holds that a petition seeking construction or reformation of a trust amendment is not a “trust contest” under Probate Code section 16061.8 and therefore is not subject to the 120-day statute of limitations that bars contests.

Godoy v. Linzner

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: B330725 Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Trotter v. Van Dyck

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: D081916 Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Luo v. Volokh

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: B323878 Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Cohen v. Super. Ct.

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: B330202 Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Key v. Tyler

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: B322246 Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Hernandez v. Sohnen Enterprises

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: B323303 Court: Cal. Ct. App. — This summary was generated from a California appellate court opinion obtained via CourtListener.

Harrod v. Country Oaks Partners, LLC

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: S276545 Court: Cal. The court held that a health-care agent’s authority under a power of attorney for health care does not extend to executing an optional, separate arbitration agreement; such an agreement is not a “health-care decision” within the meaning of Probate Code section 4615-4617, and therefore cannot be imposed on the principal. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Conservatorship of T.B.

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: A167919 Court: Cal. Ct. App. We hold that the time limit for commencing trials set forth in amended section 5350(d)(2) is directory, not mandatory, and that dismissal for the failure to comply with the time limit is discretionary. Applying this construction to the facts before us, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying T.

Haggerty v. Thornton

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: S271483 Court: Cal. We hold that under section 15402, a trust may be modified via the section 15401 procedures for revocation, including the statutory method, unless the trust instrument provides a method of modification and explicitly 1 HAGGERTY v. THORNTON Opinion of the Court by Liu, J. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Newman v. Casey

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: A165210 Court: Cal. Ct. App. 7.031 and a subsequent order declaring a deed transferring property owned by Gracia Bovis to her daughter, Marina Casey, void ab initio. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Estate of Flores

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: B320383 Court: Cal. Ct. App. section 11700 for determination of entitlement to distribution of the nephew s estate.2 He obtained a determination that he and Donald were the nephew s heirs, each entitled to a 50 percent share of the estate. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Hamilton v. Green

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: B323621 Court: Cal. Ct. App. LADONNA GREEN, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gus T. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Robinson v. Gutierrez

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: C097301 Court: Cal. Ct. App. ’s presumption, however, a “care custodian” does not include a person “who provided services without remuneration if the person had a personal relationship with the dependent adult” as established by criteria in the statute. (section 21362, subd. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Spears v. Spears

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: A164622 Court: Cal. Ct. App. the judgment and remand with instructions for further proceedings. <div style=“text-align: center; font-weight: bold; margin: 1. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Estate of Martino

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: D080846 Court: Cal. Ct. App. section 1s 6540 and 6453, which define the “natural parent” and child relationship for purposes of intestate succession. In this appeal, we conclude that Zambito has standing to claim natural parentage heirship even though he is not the Decedent’s biological child. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Colvis v. Binswanger

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: A166997 Court: Cal. Ct. App. 1 authorizes “interested persons” to respond or object at or before a hearing in a trust proceeding. We remand for the probate court to 1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Probate Code. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Stadel Art Museum v. Mulvihill

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: A165397 Court: Cal. Ct. App. of the Probate Code 1 seeking instructions from the probate court due to “a potential conflict in administering the trusts in the best interests of the respective beneficiaries.” According to the petition, the Museum has requested that the 1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Probate Code. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Bailey v. Bailey

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: B320664 Court: Cal. Ct. App. Unlabeled statutory cites are to the Probate Code. <div style=“text-align: center; font-weight: bold; margin: 1. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Estate of Sanchez

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: H045037 Court: Cal. Ct. App. mortgage, the note for which was held at various times by Bank of America and Nationstar, and that Caroline engaged in other allegedly fraudulent and/or improper conduct, Leslie sought partition of the Eulalie property by sale “for the common benefit of the estate beneficiaries” in order to “preserve and secure” the estate’s minimum 50 percent interest in the property. She further alleged that the partition action should include an accounting of Frank’s separate property contributions to the Eulalie property, and appropriate reimbursement thereof. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

The Law Firm of Fox and Fox v. Chase Bank

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: B319265 Court: Cal. Ct. App. The court held auditors’ potential multi-billion-dollar liability for financial losses suffered by third parties who rely on public audit reports was out of proportion to fault and raised other policy concerns. (Bily, at pp. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Dupree v. CIT Bank

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: A163903 Court: Cal. Ct. App. The court held that the trial court erred in treating the original complaint–filed in the name of a non-entity trust–as a nullity that barred any curative amendment; under California pleading policy and the Code of Civil Procedure, the court possessed inherent authority to permit amendment substituting the successor trustee, and the denial of leave to amend constituted an abuse of discretion. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

L.A. Unified School Dist. v. Super. Ct.

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: S269608 Court: Cal. 0.1(b)(1))) by the defendant, with a " ‘cover up’ " being defined as “a concerted effort to hide evidence relating to childhood sexual assault” (id. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Estate of Berger

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: B321347 Court: Cal. Ct. App. mandates that a document will be considered a “will” capable of being probated in court only if the document is in writing, signed (or authorized) by the testator, and signed by two people who witnessed the testator sign or acknowledge her signature. (Prob. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

McGee v. State Dept. of Health Care Services

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: C093796 Court: Cal. Ct. App. and remand. <div style=“text-align: center; font-weight: bold; margin: 1. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Diaz v. Zuniga

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: B318131 Court: Cal. Ct. App. section 15402 or the terms of the trust–when the trust instrument specifies how the trust may be modified but does not state that the specified modification method is exclusive. Courts are divided on this issue, which is currently pending before the California Supreme Court. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Conservatorship of Tedesco

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: E077664 Court: Cal. Ct. App. We affirmed the order except for the prohibition “from owning, possessing, having, buying or trying to buy, receiving or trying to receive, or in any other way getting guns, other firearms, or ammunition.” (Id. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Pool-O'Connor v. Guadarrama

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: F083954 Court: Cal. Ct. App. Section 859 (unnecessary capitalization omitted) brought by respondent Kathy Pool-O’Connor (Kathy) and joined in by respondents Rachelle Lapham (Rachelle) and Sharon Whiteside (Sharon), each of whom were beneficiaries under the Amended/Restated Trust. We conclude the subject order should be modified to correct a transpositional error, and remand for that purpose. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

A.F. v. Jeffrey F.

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: D079919 Court: Cal. Ct. App. We reverse the order appointing a “minor’s counsel,” which is improper in a DV matter where a minor seeks a restraining order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) (Fam. Code,section 3 6200 et seq. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Malear v. State of California

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: A163146 Court: Cal. Ct. App. the judgment. In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer for Malear’s failure to allege strict compliance with the claim presentation requirement of the Government Claims Act. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Zahnleuter v. Mueller

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: C093909 Court: Cal. Ct. App. d because he properly expended trust assets to defend against Katherine’s contest to the validity of the third amendment. We disagree. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Algo-Heyres v. Oxnard Manor

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: B319601 Court: Cal. Ct. App. sections 810 through 812 provide that a party lacks legal capacity to enter into a contract where deficits in the person’s mental functioning significantly impair the ability to understand and appreciate the attendant consequences, risks, and benefits of the contract. Because respondent lacked legal capacity to enter into a contract, his arbitration agreement cannot be enforced. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Estate of Franco

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: A165840 Court: Cal. Ct. App. Family Code section 7540 marital presumption, he would not be entitled to prove Franco was his natural parent under Probate Code section 6453, subdivision (b)(2). However, we find the probate court erred in applying the Family Code section 7540 marital presumption without first making the requisite finding that Marilyn and Frank, Sr. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Starr v. Ashbrook

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: G060597 Court: Cal. Ct. App. The court concluded the breach of fiduciary duty claim arose did not arise out of allegations of protected activity because, “the element of [the cross-complainant]’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty is the self-dealing act of diverting funds from the LLCs in which [the cross-defendant] owns an interest.” (Id. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

White v. Davis

Date Filed: Date not specified Case Number: E077320 Court: Cal. Ct. App. ed with directions. Herzog, Yuhas, Ehrlich & Ardell, Ian Herzog, Evan D. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Wehsener v. Jernigan

Date Filed: December 28, 2022 Case Number: D079623 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One section 2 6453 provides the rules for determining who is a “natural parent” for purposes of intestate succession, and it includes a presumed parent-child relationship under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) (Fam. Code, section 7600 et seq. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Chui v. Chui

Date Filed: December 22, 2022 Case Number: B308574 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One d in part with directions. Law Offices of Michael S. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Holt v. Brock

Date Filed: November 21, 2022 Case Number: C091636 Court: California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District the judgment. <div style=“text-align: center; font-weight: bold; margin: 1. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Adoption of M.R.

Date Filed: October 26, 2022 Case Number: C095856 Court: California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District The Court holds that a trial court may not free a minor from parental custody or approve an adoption without first completing the mandatory Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) inquiry and entering explicit findings on the child’s Indian status. Accordingly, the appellate court conditionally reverses the judgment and remands the case for a thorough ICWA investigation and the required findings; the judgment will be reinstated only if the child is determined not to be an Indian child, otherwise a new trial proceeds under the ICWA.

Limon v. Circle K Stores

Date Filed: October 25, 2022 Case Number: F082289 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District the judgment. Briefly summarized, Limon’s complaint alleges Circle K violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) (15 U. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Parker v. Schwarcz

Date Filed: October 20, 2022 Case Number: A165163 Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three The Court holds that a petition filed under Probate Code section 850 cannot be used to compel a former conservator to turn over communications and documents once the conservatorship has been terminated, because the statute applies only when a conservatee and conservatorship property still exist. Accordingly, the appellate court affirms the trial court’s denial of Parker’s “return of property” petition and treats her declaratory-relief claim as forfeited because it was never substantively raised.

In re E.L.

Date Filed: September 16, 2022 Case Number: B316261 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six allows a reviewing court to admit evidence not adduced at trial.! ! Code of Civil Procedure section 909 reads, “In all cases where trial by jury is not a matter of right or where trial by jury has been waived, the reviewing court may make factual determinations contrary to or in addition to those made by the trial court. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Guardianship of A.H.

Date Filed: September 12, 2022 Case Number: E077036 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two (section 217). Section 217, as relevant here, says: “A party seeking to present live testimony from witnesses other than the parties shall, prior to the hearing, file and serve a witness list with a brief description of the anticipated testimony. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Maleti v. Wickers

Date Filed: September 09, 2022 Case Number: H048393 Court: California Supreme Court 5.16 (special motion to strike, or anti-SLAPP motion). — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Estate of El Wardani

Date Filed: August 31, 2022 Case Number: D079406 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One Probate Code.2 Emphasizing her numerous ties to California, Janine appeals her removal as administrator of her deceased husband’s estate. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Logan v. Country Oaks Partners

Date Filed: August 18, 2022 Case Number: B312967 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four the trial court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration. <div style=“text-align: center; font-weight: bold; margin: 1. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Guardianship of Saul H.

Date Filed: August 15, 2022 Case Number: S271265 Court: California Supreme Court The court held that, under Code of Civil Procedure section 155 and the Welfare and Institutions Code, a California superior court must find that reunification with a parent is “not viable because of abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis” when the child demonstrates a substantial risk of serious physical harm resulting from the parent’s failure or inability to protect the child, and that the court must issue the SIJ predicate findings when the evidence– which may consist solely of the child’s declaration–supports those findings. Accordingly, the probate court’s denial of Saul’s petition was reversed and the matter remanded for issuance of the required findings.. This decision clarifies the evidentiary requirements for SIJ petitions, ensuring that probate courts evaluate parental inability to protect as a form of abuse/neglect rather than dismissing claims on the basis of poverty alone. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Meiri v. Shamtoubi

Date Filed: July 25, 2022 Case Number: B310619 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three The court held that a beneficiary’s untimely filing of a petition that seeks to invalidate a trust amendment constitutes a “direct contest” within the meaning of Probate Code section 21310-21311, and that the untimeliness itself satisfies the statutory requirement of lacking probable cause; consequently, the trust’s no-contest clause was properly enforced, and the beneficiary was disinherited as if she had predeceased the trustors without issue. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Royals v. Lu

Date Filed: July 18, 2022 Case Number: A160985 Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four 7.01 of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (the Elder Abuse Act or the Act) (Welf. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Tukes v. Richard

Date Filed: July 12, 2022 Case Number: B307242 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight The Court holds that the probate court erred in applying issue-preclusion to dismiss Denise Tukes’s creditor’s petition for a finder’s fee; it reverses the dismissal, vacates the judgment on the pleadings and remands for further proceedings with leave to amend. This decision clarifies that a prior action involving the same trust does not automatically preclude a later claim for a finder’s fee, limiting the use of issue-preclusion in probate disputes and ensuring creditors can pursue such fee claims.

K.R. v. Superior Court

Date Filed: June 22, 2022 Case Number: A164821 Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three (d)(1) draws a distinction between a “hearing” and a “trial” on a conservatorship petition and offers no option to a trial court to conduct a bench trial in the absence of a demand by the proposed conservatee. Moreover, the record affords no basis for concluding that K. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Bruno v. Hopkins

Date Filed: June 14, 2022 Case Number: H044960 Court: California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District The Court holds that a trial court may award attorneys’ fees and costs to respondents in a probate-trust dispute when the plaintiff’s claim is found to be without factual basis and brought in bad faith, even though the plaintiff does not own an interest in the trust assets. Relying on the credibility findings that the alleged forgery claim was unfounded, the appellate court affirms the award under Cal.

Welch v. Welch

Date Filed: May 31, 2022 Case Number: B311507 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five We reverse the probate court’s orders and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. <div style=“text-align: center; font-weight: bold; margin: 1. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

In re Z.O.

Date Filed: May 24, 2022 Case Number: G060663 Court: California Supreme Court The court found ICWA did not apply. Mother’s GAL objected to the setting of a selection and implementation hearing. This decision reinforces that termination proceedings must satisfy strict procedural safeguards–including documented competence findings and compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act–thereby shaping how probate and dependency courts handle parental-rights terminations in California. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc.

Date Filed: May 16, 2022 Case Number: B309234 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three 1 and Surety failed to vacate the forfeiture within the statutorily specified appearance period. Accordingly, the court entered summary judgment against Surety in the amount of the bond and court costs. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Estate of Eskra

Date Filed: May 03, 2022 Case Number: A162671 Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five , the trial court found that the mistake was a unilateral mistake on Brandy’s part and that she was not entitled to rescission. Brandy again appealed. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Autonomous Region of Narcotics Anon v. Narcotics …

Date Filed: April 25, 2022 Case Number: B309376 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight The Court holds that a party that is not the settlor of a revocable charitable trust lacks standing to enforce the trust’s fiduciary duties, and that the “special interest” standing doctrine for charitable trusts does not extend to revocable trusts. Accordingly, the Autonomous Region of Narcotics Anonymous cannot sue the trustee for breach of duty because it is neither the settlor nor a beneficiary with a reversionary or property interest.

Torres v. Adventist Health System/West

Date Filed: April 14, 2022 Case Number: F081415 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District the judgment. <div style=“text-align: center; font-weight: bold; margin: 1. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Marriage of Zucker

Date Filed: April 01, 2022 Case Number: B281051 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four The Court holds that when a premarital agreement limits spousal support, the trial court is not confined to the “unconscionable-at-execution” test of Family Code section 1615(a)(2); under section 1612(a)(7) the court may deem the provision unenforceable as contrary to public policy if it is unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Accordingly, the appellate court affirms the trial court’s finding that the Zucker premarital agreement’s spousal-support limitation is void, corrects an arithmetic error in the attorney-fee award (ordering Mark to pay Kim $870,000), and remands for determination of pendente-lite spousal support.

Gann v. Acosta

Date Filed: March 15, 2022 Case Number: F080831 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District the judgment. <div style=“text-align: center; font-weight: bold; margin: 1. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Balistreri v. Balistreri

Date Filed: February 24, 2022 Case Number: A162222 Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three section 154021 because the trust mandated that any amendment “shall be made by written instrument signed, with signature acknowledged by a notary public,” and the amendment was not so acknowledged. Mary appeals. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Riverside County Public Guardian v. Snukst

Date Filed: January 10, 2022 Case Number: E074949 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two ed with directions. 1 Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Cheryl L. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

People v. Financial Casualty & Surety

Date Filed: December 21, 2021 Case Number: D078294 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One O’ROURKE, J. <div style=“text-align: center; font-weight: bold; margin: 1. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Conservatorship of Joanne R.

Date Filed: December 17, 2021 Case Number: B310906 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven The court found “good cause for the continuance based on the pandemic” and its effect on the court’s calendar. 4 At the February 4, 2021 videoconference hearing, with Joanne on the telephone,3 the trial court informed Joanne, “[I]f you do not want to agree to have your conservator appointed for another year then you have a right to a trial. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Ring v. Harmon

Date Filed: December 15, 2021 Case Number: E075232 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two the judgment. <div style=“text-align: center; font-weight: bold; margin: 1. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

People v. Washington

Date Filed: December 03, 2021 Case Number: B299238 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven We hold that this language has the same meaning as the parallel language in the MDO statute: The trial court must advise the NGI defendant personally of his or her right to a jury trial and, before holding a bench trial, must obtain a personal waiver of that right from the defendant unless the court finds substantial evidence that the defendant lacks the capacity to make a knowing and voluntary waiver, in which case defense counsel controls the waiver decision." (Tran, at p. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Conservatorship of C.O.

Date Filed: November 18, 2021 Case Number: H047087 Court: California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District the judgment. <div style=“text-align: center; font-weight: bold; margin: 1. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

People v. Philadelphia Reinsurance Corporation

Li v. Super. Ct.

Date Filed: October 19, 2021 Case Number: C092584 Court: California Supreme Court 4.5 must determine whether the administrative agency’s findings are supported by the preponderance of the evidence, notwithstanding the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof applied in the underlying administrative proceeding. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Humphrey v. Bewley

Date Filed: September 29, 2021 Case Number: E074339 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two d in part, and remanded with directions. REQUEST FOR AUGMENTATION. The court holds that an order granting a motion to quash service of summons is appealable and that service by publication is invalid when the published notice identifies the real-property only by assessor’s parcel number rather than by legal description or street address. Accordingly, the trial court’s order quashing service is reversed as to the estate administrator (who made a general appearance and is therefore subject to personal jurisdiction) but affirmed for the other defendants, and the court affirms the vacatur of the default judgment.

Guardianship of S.H.R.

Date Filed: September 28, 2021 Case Number: B308440 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One The Court holds that an 18- to 21-year-old immigrant must first obtain the statutory findings required for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status before a California superior court may appoint a guardian “in connection with” that petition; because S.H.

Dae v. Traver

Date Filed: September 27, 2021 Case Number: B305834 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two The court concluded that permitting the petitioner to “escape the consequences” of his petition by withdrawing the contest would defeat the purpose of the no contest clause. (Ibid. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Schrage v. Schrage

Date Filed: September 22, 2021 Case Number: B298119 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven The Court holds that the trial court possessed jurisdiction to order the winding-up and dissolution of the five limited-liability companies that the parties stipulated to include in the statutory buy-out proceeding, and therefore the alternative decree of dissolution stands. It also holds that Leonard’s breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim is a derivative action, so he lacks standing to sue as an individual; the judgment awarding him compensatory and punitive damages is reversed.

In re Samuel A.

Date Filed: September 21, 2021 Case Number: B306103 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven We affirmed the juvenile court’s jurisdiction finding based on Patricia’s alcohol abuse and its disposition order removing Samuel from Patricia’s custody with monitored visitation. We did not address the court’s additional jurisdiction finding. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste …

Date Filed: September 08, 2021 Case Number: A158323 Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two I concur. <div style=“text-align: center; font-weight: bold; margin: 1. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Hudson v. Foster

Date Filed: September 07, 2021 Case Number: B300017 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five The Court holds that a conservatee may appeal a probate court’s denial of a motion to vacate a conservator’s final account on the ground of extrinsic fraud, and that misrepresentations of material fact in the account constitute such fraud. The appellate court rules that the conservatee has no duty to investigate the conservator’s representations unless he actually becomes aware of facts that would put a reasonably prudent person on notice of wrongdoing, rejecting the higher “should-have-known” standard applied by the trial court.

Pearce v. Briggs

Date Filed: August 31, 2021 Case Number: F080403 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District the trial court’s ruling and judgment. <div style=“text-align: center; font-weight: bold; margin: 1. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Turner v. Victoria

Date Filed: August 17, 2021 Case Number: D076318 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One The Court holds that a director of a California nonprofit public-benefit corporation must maintain a continuous fiduciary relationship with the corporation to have standing to bring a derivative action on its behalf; once the director’s term ends and she is not re-elected, she loses that standing. Accordingly, the judgments dismissing Turner’s claims as a former director are affirmed, but the courts are instructed to allow a limited amendment to substitute a proper plaintiff (or consider Attorney-General relator status).

Knapp v. Ginsberg

Date Filed: August 05, 2021 Case Number: B307559 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four (“section 1615”) for unrepresented PMA signatories. During the marriage, Tinker made several amendments to his trust and estate plan, some of which concerned the Perugia property. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Conservatorship of Farrant

Date Filed: August 02, 2021 Case Number: B307338 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six ed an order voiding a deed in which appellant’s mother had purportedly quitclaimed the Newbury Park property to him before it was sold. 2 petition in the Ventura County Superior Court to compel appellant “to account for his actions on behalf of Norma Farrant for the period September 21, 2014, to date . The court holds that an attorney-in-fact who controls an incapacitated conservatee’s assets is a fiduciary subject to the probate court’s accounting order and may be sanctioned for failure to comply, and that such sanctions may be imposed in an amount and to a recipient (the estate) beyond the $1,500 ceiling of CCP section 177.5 when they are meant to compensate the estate for the breach.

M.M. v. D.V.

Date Filed: July 19, 2021 Case Number: D077468 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One The court held that, even assuming the appellant qualifies as a “presumed parent” under the constitutional framework of Kelsey S., the trial court did not err in denying his petition to be adjudged a third parent because substantial evidence showed he had no existing parent-child relationship with the child, and therefore recognizing only two parents would not be detrimental to the child under Family Code section 7612(c). — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Conservatorship of A.B.

Date Filed: July 07, 2021 Case Number: A160473 Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four The Court holds that a trial court may not award compensation to a public guardian without independently evaluating the factors listed in Probate Code section 2942(b)–including the conservatee’s actual financial circumstances–and may not delegate the decision to defer collection to the guardian itself. Accordingly, the appellate court reverses the compensation order and remands for a new determination that the court, not the public guardian, decides whether the fee is “just and reasonable” and whether it would impose an economic hardship on the conservatee’s estate.

Conservatorship of K.P.

Date Filed: June 28, 2021 Case Number: S258212 Court: California Supreme Court addresses recommendations for individuals who have already been detained for evaluation and treatment under chapter 2. When the professional in charge of an agency providing comprehensive evaluation, or of a facility providing intensive treatment, “determines that a person in his or her care is gravely disabled as a result of mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism and is unwilling to accept, or incapable of accepting, treatment voluntarily, he or she may recommend conservatorship to the officer providing conservatorship investigation of the county of residence of the 8 Conservatorship of K. This decision standardizes jury instructions and limits the evidentiary burden on petitioners, shaping how mental-health conservatorships are evaluated in California probate practice.

Marriage of Wendt and Pullen

Date Filed: April 28, 2021 Case Number: C084083 Court: California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District The Court holds that a spendthrift trust is not immune from a Family Code section 2030 award of attorney’s fees in a dissolution proceeding; the trustee may be compelled to pay fees incurred to join the trust as a third party even absent a showing of bad-faith conduct. By reversing the family court’s denial, the decision clarifies that debts arising from the administration of a trust–such as litigation costs–are enforceable against the trust estate despite spendthrift provisions.

Dunlap v. Mayer

Date Filed: April 23, 2021 Case Number: D077561 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One The Court holds that a California probate court may not summarily dismiss a petition for a trust accounting on the basis of the pleadings alone when factual disputes exist; the dismissal must be preceded by proper notice and an evidentiary hearing under Probate Code section 17202, 17206, and section 1042. By reversing the trial court’s order and remanding for further proceedings, the decision underscores that executors and beneficiaries retain standing to seek accountings and that courts must observe statutory procedural safeguards before disposing of trust-administration actions.

Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group

Date Filed: April 15, 2021 Case Number: B300021 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight 7.34,1 and awarded punitive damages in the amount of $500,000 against appellants. This decision underscores the appellate deference owed to trial courts on factual findings of high-probability malice and on punitive-damage calculations, and it clarifies that corporate officers can be held personally liable for punitive damages in public-policy wrongful-termination cases.

Breslin v. Breslin

Date Filed: April 05, 2021 Case Number: B301382 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six a party who chooses not to participate in the trial of a probate matter cannot thereafter complain about a settlement reached by the participating parties. The Pacific parties point out that there was no trial here. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Eyford v. Nord

Date Filed: March 18, 2021 Case Number: A157962 Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three Trial court: Napa County Trial Judges: Hon. Diane M. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Conservatorship of Brokken

Date Filed: March 15, 2021 Case Number: B303898 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six section 2640.1, 1 which authorizes fees in certain cases in which a conservator was appointed. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Boshernitsan v. Bach

Date Filed: March 12, 2021 Case Number: A159532 Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One We hold that natural persons who are acting as trustees of a revocable living trust and are also the trust’s settlors and beneficiaries qualify as a “landlord” under the family move-in provision. Accordingly, appellants are not barred from seeking to evict the tenants under that provision, and we reverse and remand for further proceedings. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Keading v. Keading

Date Filed: February 18, 2021 Case Number: A151468 Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three section 859 authorizes an award of double damages for the commission of elder financial abuse without a separate finding of bad faith (part A.2. This decision clarifies that probate courts may impose punitive double damages in elder-abuse actions without a distinct bad-faith determination, shaping damages exposure in future probate-law elder-abuse cases.

Searles v. Archangel

Date Filed: January 22, 2021 Case Number: B296011 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven The court held that, under California Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(m), a civil-harassment restraining order petition must be personally served on the respondent, and the trial court was therefore correct in refusing to waive that requirement in favor of service by social-media posting; consequently the dismissal of the petition for failure to effect personal service was affirmed. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Capra v. Capra

Date Filed: January 15, 2021 Case Number: C084032 Court: California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District The Court holds that a California superior court “sitting in probate” possesses exclusive jurisdiction over probate-type actions, but that this exclusivity is a matter of departmental assignment within the single superior court–not a separate subject-matter jurisdiction that limits the court’s overall authority. Accordingly, the appellate court reverses the trial court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, confirming that the superior court may adjudicate the parties’ dispute over the cabin and trust assets.

Capra v. Capra

Date Filed: December 22, 2020 Case Number: C084032 Court: California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District The Court holds that the Mono County Superior Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the heirs’ dispute over the cabin and federal use permit and therefore may not dismiss the action on jurisdictional grounds; it affirms the trial court’s refusal to disqualify the defendant’s counsel and declares the pending injunctive-relief application moot, remanding for further proceedings on the demurrer. This decision clarifies that a probate court’s distribution order does not itself strip a trial court of authority to hear subsequent trust-property claims, reinforcing that ordinary civil courts may resolve fiduciary and ownership issues arising from trusts in California probate matters.

Conservatorship of Navarrete

Date Filed: December 21, 2020 Case Number: E070210 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two the order. I <div style=“text-align: center; font-weight: bold; margin: 1. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Conservatorship of O.B.

Jones v. Goodman

Date Filed: November 17, 2020 Case Number: D075907 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One 1.1 Defendants denied Jones’s claims and prevailed at trial. This decision reinforces that fee-shifting awards in partnership disputes are discretionary and contingent on timely filing and a showing of misconduct, shaping how California courts handle fee motions in probate-related partnership litigation.

Gomez v. Smith

Date Filed: October 19, 2020 Case Number: C089338 Court: California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District d because: (1) Louise admitted she did not expect to receive an inheritance; (2) Tammy’s conduct was not tortious independent of her interference; (3) the trial court applied an erroneous legal 1 Due to the commonality of the Smith and Gomez last names, we identify each individual by his or her full name in the first instance and thereafter by his or her first name only. No disrespect is intended. This decision reinforces California probate law’s willingness to enforce a decedent’s expressed intent through constructive trusts and limits appellate reversal of factual findings on capacity and interference.

Doe v. Yim

Date Filed: October 06, 2020 Case Number: B299856 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four ative defense that he had no fiduciary duty to appellant. Yim promptly moved to disqualify Lee as counsel under the advocate-witness rule, arguing that she would be a key witness in the parties’ dispute concerning whether he had exploited his marriage with Lee to sexually abuse her daughter and that, regardless of whether appellant had consented to Lee’s representation, Lee’s dual role as advocate and witness would prejudice Yim and the integrity of the judicial process. The court holds that, under California’s advocate-witness rule, a trial court may disqualify an attorney from representing a client in all phases of litigation–including depositions and other pre-trial proceedings–when the lawyer is “nearly certain” to be a material witness and possesses confidential information that could be used to the opponent’s advantage. The appellate court affirms the trial court’s discretionary order barring Tiffanie Lee from representing Jane Doe because Lee’s former marriage to the defendant makes her both a likely key witness and a potential source of privileged information.

Gomez v. Smith

Date Filed: September 22, 2020 Case Number: C089338 Court: California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District d because: (1) Louise admitted she did not expect to receive an inheritance; (2) Tammy’s conduct was not tortious independent of her interference; (3) the trial court applied an erroneous legal 1 Due to the commonality of the Smith and Gomez last names, we identify each individual by his or her full name in the first instance and thereafter by his or her first name only. No disrespect is intended. This decision underscores that California courts will enforce a beneficiary’s expectancy when a decedent’s heirs improperly block the creation of a trust, and it confirms appellate deference to trial-court determinations of capacity and the scope of constructive-trust awards in probate disputes.

Buskirk v. Buskirk

Date Filed: September 09, 2020 Case Number: B295648 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings. We award costs to Walter Van Buskirk III, and grant the request for judicial notice. This decision is significant for probate law because it clarifies that substantial connections to the state–such as the trust’s execution, governing law, and California-based assets–are sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over nonresident parties.

Buskirk v. Buskirk

Date Filed: August 17, 2020 Case Number: B295648 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings. We award costs to Walter Van Buskirk III, and grant the request for judicial notice. This decision clarifies that a California-created trust can be litigated in California even after it is moved out-of-state, underscoring that venue statutes do not limit the constitutional inquiry into personal jurisdiction in probate matters.

Holley v. Silverado Senior Living Management

Date Filed: August 07, 2020 Case Number: G058576 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three The Court holds that a temporary conservator of a person’s person lacks the authority to bind that conservatee to an arbitration agreement that waives substantial rights, absent the conservatee’s consent or a prior court finding of incapacity; consequently, the arbitration clause is unenforceable both as to the conservatee and against the conservators personally. This decision affirms the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and clarifies that conservators–especially temporary ones–cannot make long-term, rights-waiving decisions for a protected adult without explicit judicial authorization, a ruling that limits the reach of arbitration provisions in probate-related health-care contracts.

Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District

Date Filed: August 05, 2020 Case Number: D072850 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One d in part, and remanded with directions. Musick, Peeler & Garrett, Theodore A. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Rallo v. O'Brian

Date Filed: August 03, 2020 Case Number: B290526 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three The court concluded the petitioner had not proved his father believed he was dead and thus could not recover under the predecessor to section 21622. (Della Sala, at p. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Conservatorship of O.B.

Date Filed: July 27, 2020 Case Number: S254938 Court: California Supreme Court The Court holds that when a probate court’s decision–such as the appointment of a limited conservator–must be supported by clear-and-convincing evidence, an appellate court must review the sufficiency of the record using that same heightened standard, asking whether substantial evidence would allow a reasonable fact-finder to find the fact “highly probable.” This ruling rejects the view that the clear-and-convincing standard “disappears” on appeal and requires appellate courts to assess whether the trial court’s findings meet the legislatively mandated level of proof, a clarification that governs all probate matters (and other civil actions) that rely on the clear-and-convincing standard.

In re Brace

Date Filed: July 23, 2020 Case Number: S252473 Court: California Supreme Court applies to the characterization of property in disputes between a married couple and a bankruptcy trustee when it conflicts with the community property presumption set forth in Family Code section 760. (See Cal. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.

Date Filed: July 16, 2020 Case Number: D072850 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One d in part, and remanded with directions. Musick, Peeler & Garrett, Theodore A. This decision clarifies the limited nature of farmers’ rights in irrigation-district water and reinforces the district’s broad authority to modify service in pursuit of equitable distribution.

Cundall v. Mitchell-Clyde

Date Filed: June 29, 2020 Case Number: B293952 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two The court held that the husband nevertheless successfully revoked the trust under the statutory method. The court cited Huscher for the principle that " ‘a modification method is explicitly exclusive when the trust instrument directly and unambiguously states that the procedure is the exclusive one. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

People v. Braum

Estate of Eimers

Robertson v. Saadat

Date Filed: May 01, 2020 Case Number: B292448 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One and Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500. The cause of action for professional negligence was asserted against Saadat only. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Tubbs v. Berkowitz

Date Filed: April 07, 2020 Case Number: G056951 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three the judgment. <div style=“text-align: center; font-weight: bold; margin: 1. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Donkin v. Donkin

— This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Estate of Ashlock

Date Filed: March 03, 2020 Case Number: F078083 Court: California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District ed a judgment on the merits of a trust dispute, a will contest, and claims against Stacey for breach of fiduciary duty and financial abuse of a dependent adult. (Estate of Ashlock (Mar. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

Wilkin v. Nelson

Roth v. Jelley

Conservatorship of A.E.

Barefoot v. Jennings

Date Filed: January 23, 2020 Case Number: S251574 Court: California Supreme Court

This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

O.C. v. Super. Ct.

Sachs v. Sachs

Date Filed: January 07, 2020 Case Number: B292747 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six section 1 21135 provides that transfers of property to a person during the transferor’s lifetime will be treated as an at death transfer to the person under certain conditions. All of these conditions require a writing. — This case addresses significant issues in California probate law. For the complete analysis, refer to the full opinion.

San Diegans for Open Gov. v. Public Facilities …

San Diegans for Open Gov. v. Public Facilities Financing etc.

Case Number: S245996
Court: Cal.
Date Filed: 2019-12-26

Placencia v. Strazicich

Placencia v. Strazicich

Case Number: G055631M
Court: Cal. Ct. App.
Date Filed: 2019-12-23

Wong v. Wong

Wong v. Wong

Case Number: A154286
Court: Cal. Ct. App.
Date Filed: 2019-12-13

Bernstein v. LaBeouf

Bernstein v. LaBeouf

Case Number: B288054
Court: Cal. Ct. App.
Date Filed: 2019-12-06

Placencia v. Strazicich

Placencia v. Strazicich

Case Number: G055631
Court: Cal. Ct. App.
Date Filed: 2019-11-26

Vaquero Energy v. County of Kern

Vaquero Energy v. County of Kern

Case Number: F079719
Court: Cal. Ct. App.
Date Filed: 2019-11-19

Hodges v. County of Placer

Hodges v. County of Placer

Case Number: C084020
Court: Cal. Ct. App.
Date Filed: 2019-10-29

People v. Lucero

People v. Lucero

Case Number: C077666
Court: Cal. Ct. App.
Date Filed: 2019-10-25

Miller Marital Deduction Trust v. Zurich American …

Miller Marital Deduction Trust v. Zurich American Ins. Co.

Case Number: A155398
Court: Cal. Ct. App.
Date Filed: 2019-10-21

Estate of Holdaway

Estate of Holdaway

Case Number: E070918
Court: Cal. Ct. App.
Date Filed: 2019-10-07