Saturday, November 26, 2016
Trump's Proposal to Repeal Estate Tax Will Not Effect More Than 99% of Americans Who Are Extempted From Estate Tax. Estate Tax Elimination Does Not Eliminate Need for Trust and Estate Planning.
Friday, November 25, 2016
Estate Planning Meets Retirement Planning - NYT Article on How to Give an I.R.A. to Beneficiaries Without Giving Up Control
![]() |
Kate Thornton/New York Times |
It also allows the assets in the I.R.A. account to be broken up into separate accounts for the beneficiaries. Each account can have different guidelines on when and for what distributions are made and take into account their age.
One advantage is that there is better asset protection for the beneficiaries. In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court rule that funds held in traditional I.R.A.s that are inherited do not have the same protection as retirement assets. Another benefit is if the I.R.A. owner becomes incapacitated where the trustee can request the minimum distribution since without the owner reqeuest there can be a large penalty.
There is the option of creating a trust and putting the I.R.A. into it but that can cause issues with the I.R.A. especially where there is a spouse and can be more expensive. Trusteed I.R.A.s have management fees so that is one reason why they are usually recommended if the account is large.
Trusteed I.R.A.s have their limits and anyone thinking of a Trusteed I.R.A. should consult an experienced attorney to draft the documents, consider it in the context of retirement and estate planning.
Posted by Henry (Hank) Moravec III
Email: hm@moravecslaw.com
Office: 626-793-3210
Monday, April 25, 2016
Prince May Have Died Intestate and Estate Estimated Worth Is $300 Million
![]() |
Los Angeles City Hall Turns Purple In Honor of Prince |
The Los Angeles Times reported that Prince's estate is rumored to be worth over $300 million and that he may have died intestate (without a will or trust). While hard to imagine, it is not unusual. This would mean his sister would inherit everything as his closest heir regardless of whether he had a live-in companion or other people he wanted to provide for.
If you have not done your estate planning, you're not alone. It is natural to put it off. Being in Los Angeles, we have had celebrity clients and Us Magazine is right in that celebrities are "like you and me." This is easy to put off since it involves planning and preparing for a time when we will not be with our loved ones. One meeting I had with a celebrity for estate planning, required me to not mention the word "death" in the meeting. Of course, I complied. Why? The important thing is helping clients have peace of mind and having the satisfied feeling that one's affairs are in order.
Posted by Henry (Hank) Moravec III
Email: hm@moravecslaw.com
Office: 626-793-3210
Moravec, Varga and Mooney
Saturday, April 23, 2016
What Happens When Trust Real Property Is Only Listed on a Schedule to a Trust but No Deed is Signed? Trust Litigaton, Appeal And Court of Appeal Decision Reversing Probate Court's Ruling.
This case involves a dispute over the ownership of real property located on Via Regla formerly owned by decedent Kenneth Liebler. Kenneth, who passed away in October 2012, had executed a revocable trust in 1985 and the Via Regla property was transferred to the 1985 Trust.
Kenneth then executed an irrevocable trust in 2009 (the “2009 Trust”) which stated, “I transfer to my Trustee the property listed in Schedule A, attached to this agreement.” The sole asset listed on Schedule A was the Via Regla property.
However, Kenneth did not transfer title to the Via Regla property by a deed from the 1985 Trust to the 2009 Trust. This was an apparent oversight.
After Kenneth passed away, his daughter Melanie Carne filed a petition to confirm the validity of the 2009 Trust. A grandson, Dillon Hasting, opposed the petition and argued that the 2009 Trust was not valid because Kenneth had not properly transferred title to the Via Regla property and that property was the only asset in the trust. Nancy Worthington (Kenneth's former live-in companion) also opposed the petition on similar grounds.
The trial probate court ruled in favor of Worthington and Hasting which meant the Via Regla property would not be left to the daughter. Daughter Melanie filed an appeal. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and ruled in favor of Melanie. The appellate court held that the language in the 2009 Trust was sufficient to convey the property to the 2009 Trust, and Kenneth was not required to execute a deed.
This case is interesting because the law has been moving towards confirming property listed on a Schedule A as trust property ever since the famous Heggstad case. It has now become settled that if title to a piece of real property was in the name of a person, a Schedule A to a trust or a general assignment to the trust was sufficient to transfer title to the trust, even if the person never got around to actually executing a deed. This is because the Trust, Schedule A, and/or general assignment is evidence of the intent of the person. This was not always the case, for years the Courts simply held: no actual transfer = no transfer. Heggstad was a watershed ruling because many people intend to have all of their property in their revocable trust but can either forget to transfer the property or forget to transfer it after a refinancing.
Worthington moves the law moves a bit farther towards effectuating the intent of a person, rather than following the technical rules of how the property is held.
Of course, the delay involved in probate litigation is the same as ever. This decision, issued over three and one-half years after Kenneth passed away, also shows us how long these type of matters can take to resolve.
Finally, remember to follow up on trust recording and use professionals so nothing falls through the cracks. Our office records the deeds so these type of oversights do not happen. A simple failure to record can have a significant impact on an estate.
Posted by Henry ("Hank") Moravec III
Email: hm@moravecslaw.com
Office: 626-793-3210
Moravec Varga & Mooney
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Foreign Property Considerations In Estate Planning and Probate
Email: hm@moravecslaw.com
Office: 626-793-3210
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Who Gets Grandma's Antique China? Do Not Forget the Minor Details and Sentimental Items in Estate Planning.
Not only was this emotional for the parties but costly from a legal fee standpoint. The parties required it since without cousel present, it could not be accomplished for a variety of reasons.
A recent New York Times article by finance writer Paul Sullivan, When Dividing Assets the Little Things Matter (4/15/16) gives all of us a reminder and good ideas on how to not overlook the personal items that may not have as much monetary value as cash, real estate, securities but have sentimental value as well as some monetary value.
When relatives go in and take personal property without agreement between the parties this can be a huge source of future conflict. Photographs are often important, for example, but with scanning companies this can be taken care of as long as one relative has not taken the albums and refused to cooperate.
This is something that one can do themselves by making lists, taking photographs or videos, etc. We find, however, that for our senior clients it is often overwhelming for them to do. We can send a paralegal or attorney to your home to assist the process which is then covered by the attorney-client privilege and is part of the estate planning process. This can even be done when parents or grandparents decide to downsize and move to avoid family disputes.
For the do-it-yourselfers, there is a company FairSplit that has an interesting concept of having licensed insurance adjusters come to your home and take photographs and videos of all items and list them with price based on square footage. This company also has a less expensive online option where you do the listing yourself.
As attorneys we can incorporate this and monitor it so the parties keep track and it is used for the final reports. With technology, there are a lot of tools that can make this entire process easier and less expensive. Lesson is though not to forget the small details and personal mementos, and get help to get it done. Advance planning and hiring someone is far less expensive than legal fees later and less painful than fractured families later.
Posted by Henry (Hank) Moravec
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Four Estate Planning Documents Everyone Should Have
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Gifts To Caregiver - Special Protocols Are Required. Sample Case Where Court of Appeals Ruled Step-Daughter Was An "Heir" For Purposes of "Blood or Marriage" Exception
Contact at hm@moravecslaw.com or 626-793-3210
Thursday, April 18, 2013
What Happens when a Person Dies with an Ambiguous Will?

It is probably fair to predict that for every matter which actually results in litigation in the probate courts, there are some multiple of matters over which there is a dispute which, although it may be serious to the parties, does not (fortunately) result in actual litigation.
A new matter came into the office the other day which reminded me of law school, where the law professors try to fit all of the possible legal issues into one fact pattern. This matter had the following facts:
1. The decedent elected to have the most "simple" Will he could get. I am not sure where he got it, but it only consisted of a couple of pages. In it, his stepson was given "all the Widgets I own at the time of my death." There was no list of Widgets either in the Will or set forth otherwise.
2. Of course, the relationship between the stepson and the biological son (who was to get the remainder of the assets) was not good.
3. Like many people do, the decedent made gifts during his lifetime. One of them was a gift of a relatively valuable Widget #1 to his biological son. This was actually shipped by the decedent to the biological son, but no written notation of the gift was made.
4. The decedent also, like many people, talked. All kidding aside, he also promised one reasonably valuable Widget #2 to his grandson (the son of the biological son). Although he talked about it with various people, and referred to the Widget as "grandson's Widget" he never actually delivered it to the grandson. After the decedent's death, biological son shipped this Widget to the grandson. Like the Widget in paragraph 3 above, there was no written notation.
5. The decedent also had charitable intent. Shortly before his death he had his biological son contact a charity which ran a Widget museum. He wanted to donate one valuable and rare Widget #3 to the museum. There was an email exchange on this topic between the museum and the decedent's biological son about three months before the decedent passed away, but no formal contract. After the decedent's death the museum accepted the rare Widget.
6. Last but not least, the decedent of course had a comprehensive set of Widget making and Widget repairing tools and spare parts. He also was in the process of making a couple of Widgets (which would be #4 and #5 --- of course, the guy was a Widget maker, what would one expect?). After the decedent died, the biological son, not being a Widget maker, asked the museum if they would like this esoteric set of personal property, the museum said yes.
Now the biological son learns a few things: the step son basically wants to know why he should not get Widgets 1 through 3, and also that the step son thinks that some of the "materials" were close enough to being completed "Widgets" that they should have gone to hims as "Widgets 4 and 5" under the Will.
What result? Well, at the moment there is no court "litigation" on these claims. Everyone is upset, but how will it work out?
My predictions, which I will expand upon in upcoming posts, are:
Widget #1 stays with biological son. Widget #2 might have to be returned, depending upon whether the executor can enforce the "oral" gift under local law. Widget #3 may well come back into the estate, because charities do not like to get a reputation for holding on to property at the expense of heirs. However, Widget #3 also has a written pledge (the email). Widgets #4 and #5 probably stay with charity, as the executor can conclude that they are not completed Widgets.
This is exactly the sort of disputes which can be avoided if appropriate time is taken in the drafting of estate planning documents in the first place. And this avoidance does depend upon having someone with experience advise you when you draft documents. A good lesson to keep in mind.
Posted by Henry (Hank) J. Moravec, III, a partner at Moravec, Varga and Mooney, A Partnership.
For a free 30 minute consultation (telephonic or in person), you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210. The firm website is www.moravecslaw.com
The Los Angeles area office is located at 2233 Huntington Drive, Suite 17, San Marino, California 91108.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
A Candidate for the Longest Estate Administration - over 60 years!

The U.K.'s Daily Mail has a story about, a long (very, very long) Probate dispute.
Incredibly, an English estate with a manor house and (at one time) 3,000 acres of farmland, and a steady rental income went unclaimed for decades. The case is both interesting in a "Downton Abbey" kid of way, and a procedural way: what is the result if a beneficiary refuses to accept property?
The estate is known as the Figg-Hoblyn estate, named after the family who first lived there beginning in the 1600s. The saga which recently ended began with the estate plan set up in 1856. As was the custom at the time, the estate was left to the oldest surviving male heir. For those interested in what happened as a technical matter (well, let's not count how many of you make up that category, shall we?) the "estate plan" in question was not a Will or a Trust, but a deed, which contained trust-like provisions for ownership of the property and its income.
Squire William Hoblyn had one son and four daughters. When his son, Ernest, died shortly after William's death, the downside of the "eldest male heir system" was brought into full relief. None of the other Hoblyn daughters had yet married. When one of them finally did marry, she first moved to Canada and then California (as, presumably, she did not have a legal right to the "family" estate).
Her oldest son, Francis Figg-Hoblyn, visited the estate in 1947 (after presumably becoming aware that he was now the oldest male heir), but was daunted by the amount of work needed to be done, and never took possession. When Francis died in 1965 his eldest son, John, a former college professor with what reads as a fairly unconventional lifestyle, also refused to accept the estate, citing an unwillingness to pay taxes as a reason. In the various articles you see from a Google search, it not entirely clear why John did not want to formally take possession of the property., "Taxes" do not seem to be the actual reason, since John would have owed no U.S. tax to accept the property, and any UK tax could be paid by selling some of the property or through the collection of rental income.
Finally, when John died in 2011, the English Court was able to entertain a motion to amend the original Will to allow John's sisters to inherit the property. This ruling was disappointing to William, a male cousin, but is welcomed by the local residents who now know the estate, which has been vacant since at least the 1940s, may now be rehabilitated by the new owner.
What is sometimes glossed over in the articles (since the thought of any "unclaimed" estate is so entertaining to those of us who will never inherit an estate in the first place) is that the court appointed administrator in England had actually been renting the land out and collecting the rents during this time period. This is what would happen in a California court if any heir could not be located -- the administration of the estate would continue, and distributions would be postponed until the heir was able to accept them. What makes the Figg-Hoblyn story so unusual is the length of time that a known heir refuses an inheritance.
The full article can be found here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2293296/The-5million-Cornwall-estate-left-ruins-rightful-male-heir-claim-40-years.html, or simply Google "Hoblyn estate" for further reading.
Posted by Henry (Hank) J. Moravec, III, a partner at Moravec, Varga and Mooney, A Partnership.
For a free 30 minute consultation (telephonic or in person), you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210. The firm website is www.moravecslaw.com
The firm's office is located at 2233 Huntington Drive, Suite 17, San Marino, California 91108. There is ample free parking.
Monday, July 16, 2012
FAQ: What Is A Conservatorship And When Is It Necessary?
Conservatorship of the Person
A conservatorship of the person is a court case in which a Judge appoints a responsible person or organization (known as a conservator) to care for another adult who cannot care for him or herself (known as a conservatee). Anyone - a parent, spouse, child, other relative, or friend of the adult - can apply for a conservatorship. The two most common type of probate conservatorships are general and limited. LPS conservatorships are used to care for adults with serious mental health illnesses and they must be started by a local government agency.When Conservatorship is Necessary
After a Conservatorship is Established
Management of Wealth and Property
One Year Review
Non-Family Conservators
Those Most in Need of Conservatorship
The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/. The firm has two offices and consultations and meetings can be held at either office. There is ample free parking adjacent to the firm's offices.
The San Gabriel Valley office is located at 2233 Huntington Drive, Suite 17, San Marino, California 91108.
The San Fernando Valley office is located at 4605 Lankershim Boulevard, Suite 718, North Hollywood, California 91602-1878.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Owners Of Businesses Should Consider Creating A Succession Plan: Don't Let Your Business Become An Orphan
The New York Times recently had a guest article entitled "Is My Family Business Going To Be An Orphan?" written by an entrepreneur who owns five businesses. It is insightful since the writer held a meeting with his family to discuss succession and shares his experience.
The general school of thought is that small business owners and professional businesses should start succession planning 5 to 10 years before the anticipated transition. We also want clients to consider what happens if if they become disabled or pass away before that time. Does anyone want their business to be passed through a will (not recommended) or without one?
Why does this important business plan get delayed? Many business owners are so focused on day-to-day business operations that they fail to invest the time to develop a succession strategy. Each company is different but we like to ask some basic questions to help clients focus on their goals: Is most of the client's estate tied up in the business? Is there a spouse or children to support after the owner's death or disability? Are there any family members working in the business? Does the business require special licensure to own and operate the business (medical practice for example)?
When we meet with business owners, we combine estate planning with corporate and financial considerations so that the client can consider all options. Options can include selling, transitioning to a family member or business partner, or dissolving the business. Many complex issues should be evaluated during succession planning before coming to a decision because each business is different.
Posted by Henry (Hank) J. Moravec, III, a partner at Moravec, Varga and Mooney. For a complimentary 30 minute consultation (telephonic or in person), you can email Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210. The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com
Saturday, February 25, 2012
In Estate Planning, Making Plans For Prized Collections

Money is relatively easy to divide up but how does a collector decide what to do his or her prized collection that it has taken years to amass and reflects a passion that may not be shared by the heirs? The collection may also be hard to value.
The article shares the options available to collectors:
(1) Selling the collection before one's passing;
(2) Passing on the collection and keeping it in the family by using methods such as the annual gift exclusion of $13,000 or creating a trust to protect the collection from creditors;
(3) Giving it away to museums or charities depending on the collection; or
(4) Creating a charitable remainder trust which is especially useful for collectibles that are taxed at a 28% rate.
The real point of the article though is that it is not simply the value of these collections but the emotions that are involved in them that create the issues in deciding what to do with them in estate planning. This is why planning is key even though it is something that is simple to put off. It is typical to put estate planning off but a good way to get around the emotions is to hire an estate planner, schedule meetings and create an outside structure that requires one to address the issues -- emotional or not -- that typically arise during estate planning.
Posted by Henry (Hank) J. Moravec, III, a partner at Moravec, Varga & Mooney. For a complimentary 30 minute consultation (telephonic or in person), you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210 or (818) 769-4221.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Five Tips for Trustees

We represent trustees and being a trustee is a job with tremendous responsibility. Since trusts have become popular estate planning tools, we have seen numerous instances where they are traps for the uninformed trustee. The trust has specific wishes and demands and expects that they will closely followed, and it is the trustee's duty to make sure that happens.
For a complimentary 30 minute consultation (telephonic or in person), you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210 or (818) 769-4221.
The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/.
The San Gabriel Valley office is located at 2233 Huntington Drive, Suite 17, San Marino, California 91108.
Friday, September 23, 2011
IRS Offers Filing & Penalty Relief for 2010 Estates; Basis Form Now Due Jan. 17, 20; Extension to March Available For Estate Tax Returns

Since we help our clients prepare and file estate tax returns, it is important to note that the IRS announced on September 13, 2011 that the due dates for filing Forms 8939 and 706, as well as paying the estate tax for those estates that do not elect out of the estate tax, will be extended.
The IRS announced that large estates of people who died in 2010 will have until early next year to file various required returns and pay any estate taxes due. In addition, the IRS is providing penalty relief to certain beneficiaries of these estates on their 2010 federal income tax returns.
This relief is designed to give large estates, normally those over $5 million, more time to comply with key tax law changes enacted late last year.
- The IRS is providing the following relief:
- 1) Large estates, opting out of the estate tax, now will have until Tuesday, Jan. 17, 2012, to file Form 8939. This special carryover basis form, required of estates making this choice, was previously due on Nov. 15, 2011. Because this is a change in the specified due date rather than an extension, no statement or form needs to be filed with the IRS to have this new due date apply.
- 2) 2010 estates that request an extension on Form 4768 will have until March 2012 to file their estate tax returns and pay any estate tax due. Normally, a six-month filing extension is automatically granted to estates filing this form, but extensions of time to pay are granted only for good cause. As a result, most 2010 estates that timely file Form 4768 will have until Monday, March 19, 2012 to file Forms 706 or 706-NA. For estates of those dying late in 2010 (after Dec. 16, 2010 and before Jan. 1, 2011), the due date is 15 months after the date of death. No late-filing or late-payment penalties will be due, though interest still will be charged on any estate tax paid after the original due date.
- 3) Special penalty relief is provided to many individuals, estates and trusts that already filed a 2010 federal income tax return, or obtained an extension and plan to file by the Oct. 17, 2011 extended due date. Late-payment and negligence penalty relief applies to persons inheriting property from a decedent dying in 2010, who then sells the property in 2010 but improperly reports gain or loss because they did not know whether the estate made the carryover basis election. Details are in Notice 2011-76 posted on the IRS website.
Posted by Henry (Hank) J. Moravec, III, a partner at Moravec, Varga & Mooney, A Partnership. For a free 30 minute consultation (telephonic or in person), you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210 or (818) 769-4221.
With respect to tax and estate law issues, Hank Moravec has over 20 years' experience as one of the best Los Angeles estate and trust tax attorneys and Los Angeles probate litigation attorneys and is available should you need legal advice regarding your own or a family member's situation. For a consultation, You can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him to request a consultation.
The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/. The firm has two offices and consultations and meetings can be held at either office. We can also arrange to have consultations at your home or office.
The San Gabriel Valley office is located at 2233 Huntington Drive, Suite 17, San Marino, California 91108. There is ample free parking adjacent to the firm's office. Call (626) 793-3210.
The San Fernando Valley office is located at 4605 Lankershim Boulevard, Suite 718, North Hollywood, California 91602-1878. Call (818) 769-4221.
Friday, April 15, 2011
FAQ: How Do I Reduce The Potential For Probate Litigation While I Am Planning My Estate And Trust?

We have seen an increase in probate litigation in our practice. Perhaps this is due to the economy and shrinking real estate values in California. Even when litigation is necessary, and we have had to aggressively defend our clients or trustees -- we know that litigation can be costly, time-consuming and destructive to family relationships.
Accordingly, I wrote a post a couple of years ago addressing the question of how to reduce the risk of litigation in the estate and trust context during the planning stage. Although these methods are not guaranteed ways of avoiding litigation and every estate plan is different -- the ideas here are useful starting points to consider in the estate planning stage.
Here are six methods to reduce the potential for litigation:
1. Advise Inheritors of Inheritance Plans. Especially when children of the decedent are treated unequally, will contests and litigation arise from disappointed feelings of entitlement. Telling the children ahead of time what their shares will be may avoid a later dispute. One could enter into a contract (for consideration or something of value) with such a person that he or she will not object to the validity of the document. Be careful however, that advising a child that he or she will not receive an equal share may have adverse effects even if it prevents litigation after death. Thus, informing inheritors of the plans could cause family problems in the present. This will vary from family to family.
2. Use a Revocable Trust in Lieu of a Will. Since a revocable trust can be funded and operate during lifetime, it is difficult to contest on the grounds that the individual was unaware of its terms. When the Settlor of the trust dies, there is no need to begin a court proceeding to "prove" the validity of the trust, such as there is for a will.
3. Use an Irrevocable Trust in Lieu of a Will or Revocable Trust. An irrevocable trust is even less likely, in my experience, to be challenged than a revocable trust. Irrevocable trusts can be drafted in such a way so that transfers of property to them are not completed gifts. However, there are other risks and issues with irrevocable trusts that must be considered.
Alternatively, making a transfer that is a completed gift, paying gift tax, and filing a gift tax return disclosing details may be additional evidence that the transfer was truly intended. Again, I believe that a lifetime trust that is significantly funded is less likely to be challenged.
4. Use a Disinheritance Or No Contest Clause. If the testator lives in a state such as California that will enforce it under certain circumstances, a disinheritance clause (also called an in terrorem clause for the Latin word "in fear") could be used. The goal here is to prevent beneficiaries from causing a legal ruckus after the testator is gone. A lot of trust and estate litigation is not about the validity of the document, it is about its interpretation or about actions taken by the fiduciary. In order to reduce this type of litigation, a disinheritance clause can cause a forfeiture of a beneficiary's interest if such a challenge is made. The entire estate plan must be consistent with this clause.
With the advent of passage of Senate Bill 1264 which enacts Probate Code Sections 21310-21315 effective January 1, 2010, California's "no contest" law has been significantly weakened. This weakening affects wills and trusts that became irrevocable after January 1, 2001 and later. "No contest" clauses traditionally penalize parties who attempt to attack a will or a trust. Now, it will be significantly easier to attack a will or a trust in California.
5. Use Mediation or Arbitration Provisions. Arbitration or mediation cannot be used with respect to the challenge of a document's validity unless the parties agree to it. Using a disinheritance clause to cause forfeiture if the parties will not participate can be used. This could stop claims that are filed only to harass other beneficiaries or to delay distributions to others. Another approach would be having the parties enter into a contract agreeing to arbitration before the transfer.
6. Use a Condition Precedent to a Bequest as an Alternative Method of Causing Participation in Mediation or Arbitration. Since a person cannot be forced to participate in arbitration or mediation unless the law provides for enforcement, consideration must be given to how to get parties to use these methods. One can use the carrot instead of the stick. Parties can be given a benefit if they consent to use arbitration or mediation instead of resorting to court.
When creating estate plans or trust documents it is important to consider the potential for litigation and whether it should be addressed prior to the death or after the death of the people creating it. While much can be done prior to death to resolve potential disputes and keep communications open, often issues only arise after the death of the trustees. During the estate planning stage, this is the time for you to consider what can be done to reduce the likelihood of estate and trust litigation.
Posted by Henry (Hank) J. Moravec, III, a partner at Moravec, Varga & Mooney, A Partnership. For a free 30 minute consultation (telephonic or in person), you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210 or (818) 769-4221.
With respect to probate, Hank Moravec has over 20 years' experience as one of the best Los Angeles probate attorneys and Los Angeles probate litigation attorneys and is available should you need legal advice regarding your own or a family member's situation. For a consultation, You can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210 or (818) 769-4221 to request a consultation.
The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/. The firm has two offices and consultations and meetings can be held at either office.
The San Gabriel Valley office is located at 2233 Huntington Drive, Suite 17, San Marino, California 91108. There is ample free parking adjacent to the firm's office.
The San Fernando Valley office is located at 4605 Lankershim Boulevard, Suite 718, North Hollywood, California 91602-1878.