APPELLATE-OPINION

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.

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.