Prince May Have Died Intestate and Estate Estimated Worth Is $300 Million

Los Angeles City Hall Turns Purple In Honor of Prince

The untimely passing of music superstar Prince even gets to estate and probate attorneys who grew up on his music. One of the first questions estate and probate geeks ask is about his estate planning since he owned copyrights to his music, has a valuable public brand and name, and had an estate large enough to be subject to estate tax. 

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

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.

A recent California Court of Appeal decision, Carne v. Worthington (4/13/16), shows how disputes over trusts happen if one is not careful in executing and recording all the deeds to property that are to be part of a trust. It also shows how a relative can try to take advantage of a failure to record a deed and how trust litigation happens and can take years to resolve.

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.

The appellate court reasons that while Kenneth did not own the property individually at the time of the transfer, his signature on the 2009 Trust was sufficient to convey title from the 1985 Trust to the 2009 Trust because the 1985 Trust was a revocable inter vivos trust, he owned the property as sole trustee of the 1985 Trust, and he had the power to transfer real property owned by the 1985 Trust. 

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 

Technology and Online Tools Can Help Executors of Estates While Executor Works With Probate Attorney

Technology is making it easier to save and share information and the probate and estate administration world is no different. Clients can use Excel spreadsheets, Dropbox and other file sharing tools with us and beneficiaries.

The New York Times recently had an article "Online Tools Can Ease the Burden of Being an Executor of an Estate" and it recommended an interesting online database tool called EstateExec that has gotten good reviews. It is an interactive tool that allows an executor to list and track financial assets, personal property, debts and then share it online with a lawyer or other beneficiaries and family members. It also has timelines and checklists (so court hearings for approval can be entered) which provides a transparency to the process which helps others understand why it can take months in the probate court system.

While this does not eliminate the need for a probate attorney in an estate with assets, the will is complex or where there is a likelihood of litigation, it has good checklists and is a useful tracking device. It can also be helpful for very small estates that do not need probate court. 

Part of our practice is focused on using technology where possible to make it easier for our clients. Older clients are not as technology based but things are changing and we can take advantage of all the tools available to us to make probate administration easier and faster. 

Posted by Henry (Hank) Moravec III
Office: 626-793-3210
Email: hm@moravecslaw.com

Foreign Property Considerations In Estate Planning and Probate

In our practice, we have a significant number of clients who own real property or have bank account in a foreign country whether China, Mexico, England, Costa Rica, England, Canada or France or other countries. Our clients are becoming more global and mobile, especially when buying properties abroad for retirement, vacation or for their families.

One issue that arises with foreign property is the risk of double taxation. It is possible that when foreign property is transferred, U.S. estate tax will apply, but so will the tax of the foreign country. When a citizen of the United States dies and owns property in a foreign country, the property in the foreign country will be subject to U.S. estate tax if the estate is subject to taxation at all. There are treaties with certain countries which prevent the double taxation and give credit.

Another issue that comes up is multiple wills in different jurisdictions. Somestimes one last will and testament may ultimately revoke another. When ttwo wills are needed, it is important that attorneys from each country work and coordinate the estate planing and wills.

If there is no will or trust, in civil law countries, such as France, the property vests in the decedent’s heirs immediately upon the death of the decedent. This is unlike the United States and other common law countries, where there generally must be a personal representative or executor to transfer title or, at a minimum, some sort of court recognition of the death and transfer of property. 

For example, if a client owning property in France desired that property vest in a long time companion and there was no will or trust, the property would immediately vest as set forth under French succession laws. On the other hand, if the client wanted the property to vest in their heirs, then drafting a will in France to deal with the French property would be not be needed.  

We work with attorneys in other countries while advising clients with foreign property during the estate planning or probate phase. It is always best to address these issues during estate planning rather than going through the difficult and expensive process of dealing with them after death through the probate process. As we live in a more global society and smaller world, these issues are becoming more common. Don't forget to prepare for all your estate planning and probate issues, particularly when foreign real property is involved. 

Posted by Henry (Hank) Moravec III
Email: hm@moravecslaw.com
Office: 626-793-3210

Who Gets Grandma's Antique China? Do Not Forget the Minor Details and Sentimental Items in Estate Planning.

We have had two cases in the last couple of years where one of the attorneys from our office had to spend days sitting with the disputing relatives in estate cases while they took turns going through personal property and effects of their relative. 

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

Frequently Asked Questions About Probate Mediation. How to Use Mediation as a Important Tool in Probate Cases.

Many clients understand the concept of going to court or "suing" someone, and that a lawsuit can result in a trial before a judge or jury.  However, not as many know that (i) in probate courts, which hear all estate and trust disputes, there is no jury, and (ii) there is a strong preference among the probate court judges that the parties attempt to mediate a matter before a trial will be scheduled. 

What is mediation? Well, in a non-legal sense any negotiation between two people can be called a mediation.  But in the context of a formal court proceeding mediation has a specific meaning, which is a commitment by the opposing sides to schedule a day (or series of days) to meet with a mediator and try to resolve the case in a confidential, non-binding process.

Mediation is a flexible and less formal process that may reduce the time, legal fees and costs often associated with preparing for and going through a formal trial. In our practice, we work on making our clients' position as strong as possible before the mediation process so that there is more leverage during negotiations. 

A trained mediator (often a retired probate judge or experienced probate attorney) acts as a neutral person who facilitates communication and assists parties in reaching a mutually acceptable resolution of all or part of their dispute. The mediator is not the decision-maker and does not resolve the dispute -- the parties do with the mediator's assistance. A written settlement agreement is drafted and signed at the end of the day so there is an enforceable agreement.

A mediator is often able to more fully explore the parties' underlying interests, needs and priorities. It is often conducted like shuttle diplomacy and the parties can tell the mediator "confidential' information not to be shared with the other side. Mediation may be particularly effective when family members have a dispute or when emotions are getting in the way of resolution. 

The attorneys participating are also key to the process. For example, I am also a tax attorney and many probates have tax issues in the background. There can be income tax, step up (or down) in income tax basis or estate tax issues. Sometimes with structuring on the tax side during mediations, taxes can be reduced and used to bridge any settlement gap. The certainty on the tax side can be an important benefit. Creative problem solving by the attorneys is key. Most of the time it is the well-prepared, knowledgeable, strategic and credible attorney who helps the mediator settle the case. 

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

When a client (especially an elderly one) wants to make a bequest to a caregiver in estate planning documents (a trust or will), the law requires a special protocol. Similarly, when we are hired as an administrator or to represent beneficiaries, gifts to caregivers are subject to great scrutiny. Why? Gifts to caregivers are generally prohibited by law under California Probate Code section 21350 with some exceptions. 

Probate Code Section 21351, enumerates several exceptions to this general rule. One of the exceptions—found in Section 21351(a)—provides that section 21350 does not apply IF the transferor is related by blood or marriage to, is a cohabitant with, or is registered as a domestic partner of the transferee. Cal. Prob. Code § 21351(a). 

One California published decision addressed whether this provision applied to a stepdaughter by marriage and highlights the issues that arise when a caregiver is a beneficiary under a trust or will. This California Court of Appeal case is Hernandez v. Kieferle (2nd Circuit, 2011). 

In Hernandez v. Kieferle, the Second Appellate District of California reviewed a probate court decision which invalidated an amendment to a trust designating stepdaughter Claudine Kieferle as the trustee and sole beneficiary of her stepmother Gertrude’s estate.

In plain language, here is what happened. At one point, neighbor Florentina Hernandez was the trustee and principal beneficiary of Gertrude Kieferle's estate. The stepdaughter Claudine moved in with Gertrude and took care of her. Stepmother Gertrude amended her trust to make stepdaughter and caretaker Claudine the trustee and sole beneficiary. Now neighbor Florentina was not going to receive anything with the new amendment. 

After Gertrude passed away, Florentina challenged the validity of the second trust amendment under Probate Code Section 21351(a) mentioned above. The probate court ruled in neighbor Florentina's favor and invalidated that amendment. At the probate court level, the court ruled in favor of Florentina noting that section 21350 established a presumption that transfers to care custodians are the product of fraud, duress, menace, or undue influence and, since Claudine lived with Gertrude and cared for her in the evenings, Claudine was disqualified from taking under the trust.

Stepdaughter Claudine appealed the ruling and won on appeal. In reviewing the lower court ruling, the Appellate Court reversed this decision and concluded that it was an error not to apply the exception found in section 21351(a). The Court rejected the argument that the exception did not apply to Claudine because she was not an “heir”—where her stepmother’s estate did not actually contain property attributable to her father (who passed away eleven years prior)—and found that a person is the transferor’s heir if some intestate rule identifies the person as the transferor’s successor, regardless of whether the transferor’s estate includes the type of property distributed under the rule. Therefore, the section 21351 exception applied and the second amendment was deemed valid allowing Claudine to remain as the trustee and sole beneficiary of Gertrude’s estate.

Posted by Henry Moravec, III, Attorney at Moravec, Varga and Mooney.  
Contact at hm@moravecslaw.com or 626-793-3210

Do I Need to Hire a Lawyer in Probate Court?

One common question that we often hear is the following:

"Do I have to hire a lawyer in Probate Court?"

or its close relative:

"Can I represent myself in Probate Court?"

I would note that this question also comes up during Probate Court hearings on a regular basis, because on a typical day, out of about 50 or so matters on the calendar there are bound to be 2 or 3 people representing themselves without lawyers.  Invariably, of the two or three, one or two of them is told by the judge to "seek legal advice."

You would expect a lawyer to say "of course you need to hire a lawyer" but the most accurate answer is that the need depends upon the facts:

1. If you have plenty of time on your hands, and no time pressure with respect to the estate, and no pressure from creditors or heirs, you might be able to represent yourself and have no downside.   Most people consider "wasting time" a downside, hence the first qualification.  A continuance, which is what the Court calls the situation where a matter scheduled for January 31 has to to be rescheduled for March 5 because a document is not properly prepared, causes a delay of the time of the continuance, in this example over 30 days.  So, if it does not matter how long it takes to, for example, take title to property, then the client would not be upset with the delay.  However, if a creditor or another heir wants things concluded, the delay is problematic.

2  So, that leads us to the next generalization:  if time is in any sense of the essence, only by using an experienced probate lawyer can you be confident to minimize delays.   This also applies if the client simply wants to not worry about the matter, because regardless of how long the process takes, the stress factor drops if a lawyer helps with the case.

3. Then, there are the situations in which you absolutely need a lawyer, and as soon as possible: (a) any time there is a party against you.  This is because a mistake you make may result in liability to the other party, be they creditor or heir.  (b) Any time there is a potential tax problem of the decedent.  (c) any time there is a creditor of the decedent which has a claim which may be disputed.

4. Finally, if you do not want the burden of responsibility, you should always hire a lawyer.   If, for example one sibling is nominated to be the administrator, and part of the job is reporting on the administration to the other siblings, use of an experienced probate lawyer greatly increases the odds that the administration will be stress free, since an expert will be available to answer questions.  This factor alone seems like a matter of common sense but is in fact important.  Many "probate disputes" start when the administrator is un-represented and an avoidable mistake is made.

 The Cost May Be Less Than You Think

 Probate fees are significantly less than fees charged by realtors to market and sell property.  Although there are some discount real estate (market your property yourself) brokerages, in the main no one considers the standard 5% commission on a real estate transaction to be out of line, and as a matter of fact considering the amount of people who voluntarily pay it, it is considered very much "in line."  To sell a $1,000,000 house, in a transaction which might take 60 to 90 days, costs $50,000.   To probate a $1,000,000 estate, which might take more than a year, and collect various assets and deal with multiple beneficiaries, and protect yourself as a fiduciary from liability costs a $23,000 statutory fee in Probate Court.   Although there are sometimes other fees and costs for additional work, at a fundamental level in this area legal representation is less expensive that selling a house.

So, it turns out that advice is actually simple.  Save money if you can, but don't be "penny wise and pound foolish."

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

Probate and Trust Administration Top Posts

 The other day I was looking through all the stats on the blog, to see the most popular posts.  In first place is What happens when someone dies without a will?  with 1550 views.  If you liked that one, check the  2013 related post: What happens when someone dies without a will? Does joint tenancy save the day? The rest of the top five posts of all time on the blog are:

2. Recent California Decision On Breach Of Trust & Trustee Fiduciary Duties   with 1010 views.

3. Recent California Decision Highlights Trustee's Breach Of Duties And Misconduct When Trustee Is Also A Beneficiary  with 961 views

4. What Is Undue Influence In California Probate Courts? with 740 views, and 

5. Potential Estate Tax Implications Of J.D. Salinger's Death  with 490 views.

We feel that there is an overall theme developing here, since the most viewed posts are probably connected with what people are searching for on the Internet and what brings them to the blog.  

As a technical matter, the permanent change to a $5,000,000 exemption per person means that for many people, estate taxes are no longer an issue which would drive estate planning.  It is a huge difference to not so long ago when the exemption was only $600,000.

However, family relationships cannot be legislated, and the conflicts which develop after death are very much unaffected by tax laws.  If one child thinks that their sibling unduly influenced Mom, well, that is simply an issue which will always be around.

We see our practice in disputed matters steadily expanding, so these stats are not surprising to us. 

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 San Gabriel Valley office is located at 2233 Huntington Drive, Suite 17, San Marino, California 91108.

What Happens when a Person Dies with an Ambiguous Will?

I have been posting lately on the various issue and challenges raised by probate and trust litigation.  Now, just to be clear, "litigation" means an actual filing in a Court of law.   But what of something that rises to the level of a mere "argument" or maybe a level or two above an argument, perhaps where each person feels they need a lawyer to advise them, but does not actually end up in court?  In other words, a "dispute?"

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.

Litigation in the Probate Courts Part II, How Long Does it Take?

In the first installment of this series of posts, we talked about the general aspects of probate litigation, and what to expect if you find yourself involved in a case.  In this post I will talk about how long each phase of a case may take, and what a litigant can expect along the way.  Often, the timing of a case is as important as the substance of the claims.

A case breaks down into the following segments:

A. Pleading, or the making of allegations by one side and the corresponding denial of allegations by the other side.  Pleading alone can take several months.  In a Probate case, it is rare for one party to file any sort of motion, the other party to receive it and object, and for the parties to both agree with the Court to move to the next stage in anything less than about four months, sometimes much longer.  The other factor is that in a Probate case there are often more than two sides.  Each beneficiary of an estate could have a different view of a matter.

B. Discovery, or additional fact finding.   Additional fact finding always takes time.  For example, let say that the matter at issue is a beneficiary demanding an accounting.  Well, the court may say "when can you have that accounting done?"  The party may respond "in three months."  Then the court orders it filed, and of course the other side gets time to examine it and have specific objections, which might take a couple of more months.  So now you could easily have taken a year.

C. Preliminary Orders, which are Orders from the Court to keep the case moving along.  There may be some preliminary orders along the way, but those could be expensive to get and are always time consuming.  To continue with the example above, a typical case may start with a beneficiary accusing the trustee of some act and asking that the trustee be removed.  However, if there has not been an accounting filed the court will want to see that first, and that may take a few months.

D.  A formal mediation. At this point a year or so may have gone by, and the parties are already growing tired.  At this point the Court will offer the parties a chance to mediate the matter before a private mediator.  Often, this is the point at which the case settles.  Mediation can be very helpful, since it is often in mediation that, for the first time, one side hears how the other side's arguments and their arguments are viewed by an unbiased third party.

E.  An Evidentiary Hearing.  Thiis is what most people consider "a trial" to be, or what they think of by "going to court."  Not only do the first four steps often take more than a year to complete, it now may take a year to get a hearing date on a matter that will take more than a couple of hours of evidence.  Two years with no resolution feels like a long time, and it is.

F.  Appeals, if any.  An actual appeal, with briefing schedule to the appellate court, could be another year.  Often, appeals are filed simply to create the possibility of additional settlement discussions.

As you can see, the rather extreme length of time it can take to obtain a court order is a factor in the dispute,  independent of the actual merits of the claim.  Time is a factor which simply must be discussed with the client, because not only is "time" an issue, but costs rise along with time.  There is no positive way to really spin this, but this is why most cases settle -- it would simply take too long and cost too much to achieve complete victory.

At Moravec, Varga & Mooney we have extensive experience with disputed matters and the various phases of a case.  We have found that it is a great help to a client to give them an honest appraisal of how long a case can actually take.  It can be an extremely bad thing if a lawyer is "too optimistic" about how quickly a client can get a case to a judge.  If the client does not understand the time and costs involved, the time and cost can simply overwhelm the merits of the case, which can be a disaster if the case is actually a good one.


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.

A Candidate for the Longest Estate Administration - over 60 years!

An Epic Story of Procrastination?  Or an Epic Story of a Distaste for English Weather?

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.

Litigation in the Probate Courts, Part I - What Will Happen If Someone Files A Lawsuit In Probate Court?

What Will Happen If Someone Files A Lawsuit In Probate Court?

One common question that arises in the area of our practice which focuses on resolving disputes among executors, trustees, and beneficiaries is: "what will happen if someone files a lawsuit in Probate Court?" It's the client's  "nickle" if legal fees mount up, so its not only a fair question, but a critical one.

The answer to that question is something everyone who is focusing on their own estate planning ought to know, and something a person who is involved in an estate administration should absolutely know. Not knowing can lead to bad decisions which are difficult and expensive to fix at a later date. I will explore this topic over a series of posts.

The "normal functions" of the Probate Court are simply:
-- to figure out who is entitled to the property of someone who died, and
-- to also administer the estates of people who can no longer legally take care of themselves (guardianships and conservatorships).

This series of posts will focus on the estate and trust litigation process, but the possibilities for disputes in guardianships and conservatorships are just as frequent and can be even more frustrating.

Difference Between Civil Litigation and Probate Litigation

What I often tell clients is that there is a big difference between general civil litigation and probate litigation.  In general civil litigation: the vast, vast majority of disputes (which are not a matter of divorce proceedings) involve an insurance company as the ultimate paying party. General civil matters end up essentially boiling down to a war of attrition, where the insurance company who is defending the matter finally decides what the case is worth to go away. There are also a large contingent of employment related disputes, where you substitute an employer (usually a large one, since small employers do not have large amounts of money)  for the insurance company.

In a probate or trust dispute litigation, however, there is rarely, if ever, an insurance company involved, the matters tend to be highly emotional (more on that below). The first "stage," if you will, is sorting out the dispute from the actual amount in dispute.

For example, in a $100,000 estate, the maximum amount in dispute is a maximum of $100,000. In a $1,000,000 estate, the maximum amount in dispute is $1,000,000 and so on.

Emotional Losses Can Exceed The Monetary Loss (Case Study)

The most common emotion we see is a client who has an "emotional loss" which far exceeds the monetary loss. Here is a case study in this which is common in our practice.

A brother was certain his sister had been taking advantage of their father prior to and after their father's death. In the first few hours of investigating, we found $40,000 had been improperly transferred. We wrote a demand letter and the sister agreed to reimburse the estate. Since the sister and the brother were splitting the estate --  that $40,000 improper transfer was worth $20,000 to the brother (the sister was entitled to the other half).  At this point, the brother had spent only a few thousand dollars in attorneys' fees.

Then, a very familiar emotion kicked in.  The brother was upset that his sister had taken $20,000 that should have gone to him. Brother also became upset that he had to hire an attorney to protect his rights. Based on this emotion, he embarked on a hunt to see what other improper transfers or expenses his sister "might" have made in the estate.  After many more thousands of dollars in legal fees -- and at least a hundred hours of his own time -- he found a trip to the Home Depot  for $325 that the sister charged to her father that she should have paid herself.

In the end, the case settled because both brother and sister realized that there was only so much involved  and that a search, involving lawyers, for total certainty, was simply too expensive.  They would both (especially our client) have to be satisfied with what I would call "partial certainty"  - they did not know for certain that every nickel had been accounted for, but they did know that the overall result was relatively fair, and that more litigation was not worth it.

One reason that the case settled with a relatively small attorney cost was that opposing counsel was an experienced probate attorney who knew, from the beginning, how to advise his client about her duties and moreover, that the case should settle.  In future installments, I will tell a horror story or two about what can happen if a general civil litigator is involved in a probate litigation.

Probate Litigation Lesson 

We all have parents. Many of us have siblings. In any case no one has a perfect relationship with all members of their family. Thus, the lesson to be learned from the above story is that the death of a parent and an inheritance can fray almost any family bond.  Before you make a decision based on those very understandable emotions, call us or any experienced probate lawyer. Although it may not seem like it, it could save you quite a bit of money down the road.

As a trustee or executor, you can be sure not to make an inadvertent mistake that riles up beneficiaries for no reason. As a beneficiary, you can be sure not to throw allegations at a trustee who may actually be doing their best.  Either way you can replace emotions with knowledge, which is always a good deal.

An experienced and honest probate lawyer will help you create a strategy from the outside and not simply capitalize on the normal emotions that are inherent in these cases. When you need to be aggressive - they will also know how to be efficiently aggressive to help you win or obtain the best possible result.


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 or (818) 769-4221. The firm website is www.moravecslaw.com

The firm's office is located at 2233 Huntington Drive, Suite 17, San Marino, California 91108 and there is ample free parking.

7 Strategies To Reduce Potential For Probate Litigation

The increase in probate litigation in our practice continues.  We had speculated last year that this might be 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.

We had previously listed six strategies to reduce the potential for litigation, but please take note of the new number 7, which recent experience has shown may be the most effective:

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.

To review Senate Bill 1264, go to: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_1251-1300/sb_1264_bill_20080707_enrolled.pdf

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.

7.  If a particular beneficiary shows signs of being difficult, make the gift to that beneficiary a specific gift.  
The wisdom of this particular method has been illustrated by a current matter in our office.   Consider the difference between  giving a beneficiary 20% of the estate, or $1,000,000. If the former, that beneficiary may object to the valuation of all of the estate assets, i.e. "I don't think that property is worth $1,000,000, I think it is worth $1,500,000.  You are trying to under value it!"   If the latter, the specific gift may be paid in cash or currently valued securities, thus vastly reducing the area of dispute.  If the assets are of a sufficient value to draft the plan this way, much argument may be avoided.

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 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 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/. 

Seven Questions I Ask Clients When Mediating Estate And Family Property Conflicts

I have noticed an increase in the number of estates, trusts, and probate-related disputes over the last few years. Part of the increase may be our aging baby boomer population and part of it may be due to the economic downturn. In some of our cases, we use mediation to resolve these disputes -- entire cases or isolated issues. 

For example, in cases in which a residence is the sole or primary asset, mediation with regard to a possible expedited sale of the house with the proceeds to be put in escrow pending resolution of the lawsuit can benefit the parties since empty houses deteriorate rapidly and are difficult to insure. Such a sale can also serve as a reality check for the parties who may be improperly estimating the fair market value of the house. 

Why is mediation used even when each side is sure that he or she is absolutely right or the opposing party seems impossible? Here are 5 reasons: First, it can help save litigation expenses and prevent the estate from being dissipated by legal fees. Due to court cutbacks, it takes longer to obtain hearings and cases can last for years. Second, it maintains our clients' confidentiality and keeps fights out of the public eye. In litigation, court filings are public where mediation can allow the records to be confidential. Third, it can preserve family relationships or prevent family relationships from deteriorating further.Mediation can address underlying family conflicts and take into account emotions and family dynamics in considering legal obligations and rights. 

Fourth, it allows us to obtain certainty and ensure tax savings which may not happen in litigation when a judge is deciding the case. Fifth, it allows us to use creative solutions that may not be typical legal remedies that a court can apply. In mediation we can air and acknowledge complicated emotional issues that were preventing early settlement and we can develop flexible solutions to accommodate different interests. 

Here are some questions I ask clients when we are considering mediation. This is based on cases where we have agreed to mediate conflicts in order to preserve family wealth and promote family relationships. 

• Is the conflict ripe for mediation and are the parties motivated? Mediation should occur when planning and decision making cannot continue because of unresolved conflict and the parties understand that opportunities are being lost or extra expenses and legal fees are being incurred. Mediation usually happens after we have hit a wall in the settlement process where having an experienced third party mediator can make a difference. Mediation can occur before, during, or after court proceedings.

• What are the goals for mediation? I help clients identify the goals in specific terms. Do you want the best possible monetary outcome, family peace, specific property, preservation of assets or other goals? 

• Who should participate in the mediation?  Probate cases usually involve a high degree of emotionality and numerous parties. There may be multiple decision makers (spouses, children, advisors, and significant others). If someone can veto the agreement or is necessary for it to work, consider whether that person should be at the mediation.

• Are you and the lawyers prepared?  Thorough preparation is often the key to success. It is important to have researched the underlying facts and the law with respect to the outstanding issues before going to mediation. Sometimes the key to successful resolution may lie in creative use of the tax laws. I also spend time identifying the strengths and weaknesses of both sides' positions. I usually prepare a confidential Settlement Brief providing the mediator with necessary information and background information. I will also highlight my clients' strengths and give the mediator the other sides' weaknesses. I summarize the history of prior settlement attempts and offers. I often provide the mediator with copies of relevant cases and/or statutes. Sometimes I will present expert or financial reports to help the mediator understand the issues. 

• Who should be the mediator? Mediators have different styles and approaches. Will the parties respect a former probate judge? Do the personalities and situation require an authoritative mediator to evaluates alternatives and suggests outcomes? Or would the parties respond better to a more facilitative mediator who helps the parties work out their own agreement?

• Do we have a negotiation plan? In order to be assured of getting what my client wants most, I help prioritize my client's interests, prepare a general strategy and consider which concessions might help achieve the identified goals. It sometimes takes more than 1 session to reach agreements and my client needs to be prepared to be patient and keep emotions in check and not simply issue ultimatums. Some mediations are marathons and not sprints. 

• Can we bring our proposed settlement agreement to the mediation? If I have cases where clients know what specific wording or stipulations are needed, I will bring a draft agreement, release or settlement on a memory device or laptop to the mediation to be revised as needed. Careful drafting is required for a mediated agreement to be enforceable and it is best to obtain the signatures the day of the mediation to avoid future disputes or someone changing their 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 or (818) 769-4221. The firm website is 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.

Trust Administrator Charged With Grand Theft, Perjury and Forgery In Ventura County California

We see numerous cases where there are allegations of wrongdoing in the administration of estates, however, a recent case turned criminal. On February 13, 2012, the Ventura County District Attorney's Office arrested Geoffrey Charles Sjostrom (DOB 09-25-1954), of Simi Valley, and charged him with nine felony charges, including grand theft, perjury, forgery, and the aggravated white collar crime enhancement. His bail was initially set at $200,000.

The criminal complaint alleges that Mr. Sjostrom was a friend of Francis J. Copland, who died in 2005. Before Mr. Copland died, he prepared a trust and a will, naming Mr. Sjostrom to administer both. In his estate documents, Mr. Copland left all of his property to family members. After Mr. Copland's death, Mr. Sjostrom failed to probate Mr. Copland's will and failed to properly account for Mr. Copland's trust property.

The probate court removed Mr. Sjostrom as trustee and ordered him to account for Mr. Copland's property. At that point, Mr. Sjostrom allegedly filed a sworn declaration claiming Mr. Copland had exhausted his bank accounts when he died. A successor trustee was appointed and discovered this information was false. The successor trustee found that Mr. Copland had money in various accounts when he died and that then trustee Mr. Sjostrom methodically took more than $250,000 from those accounts by means of check and ATM withdrawals. If convicted of all charges Sjostrom faces up to 11 years in state prison.

Thus, apart from the fiduciary duties that administrators have to beneficiaries and the estate, it is critical to remember that basic criminal law can come in play if there is misappropriation of funds or pleadings filed under the penalty of perjury.

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.

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.

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.

Being a trustee can be a thankless job. It can subject even the most honest person with good intentions to litigation. If you are asked to serve as trustee, weigh your decision carefully since a trustee's duties may become complicated and mired in disputes.

Here are tips that we give our trustee clients:

1. Read the trust with the aid of a trust attorney. Since the trustee is required to administer the trust according to its terms, reading all the terms of the trust and understanding the terms is important. Not all trusts are the same and in many cases it is important that the trustee read the document carefully and be assisted by an attorney familiar with trust administrations.

2. Provide annual accountings. Certain trusts are specific as to what the trustee may receive as compensation (for example, a fixed fee or a percentage of the value of the assets). But some trusts only provide for "reasonable compensation" to be paid to the trustee which can mean different things to different people. To avoid problems, keep track of the hours you spend on trust-related duties. If there is a dispute regarding compensation, be prepared to show the actual amount of time devoted to trust matters.

California Probate Code Section 16062 requires a trustee to provide the beneficiaries with annual accountings that explain the trust's income and expenses. Once the accounting is finished, serve it on the beneficiaries immediately since service triggers the three-year statute of limitations. For example, if a trustee does not serve the accounting, the statute of limitations for filing a challenge will not begin to run.

3. Track inventory. Do not assume the trust is in effect because the documents have been signed. Make sure the assets in questions were actually transferred into the trust and vested in the name of the trustee. If this has not been done, exercise best efforts to bring the trust's assets in to the trust as soon as possible. Locate all potential trust assets, and determine whether any that have not yet been transferred to the trust can still be included.

4. Get good legal advice and insurance. The best protection against a potential lawsuit is to get good legal advice and to purchase an insurance policy covering errors and omissions. Without insurance coverage, a trustee's personal assets could be at risk if an unhappy beneficiary files a lawsuit.

5. Remain neutral. Lawyers such as myself who are asked to serve as trustees are often caught in the middle. On the one hand, I will serve the trustee's interest as set forth in the trust instrument. On the other hand, I must pay attention to the interests of the beneficiaries who probably include close family and friends of the trustee. The same applies to laypersons who serve in this capacity.

The trustee's actions will be watched and possibly challenged by any beneficiary who feels he or she was treated unfairly.

There is an exception to the need to remain neutral and that is when the trust is revocable (such as while the settlor is still alive). In that situation, the trustee's duty is to the settlor and not the remainder beneficiaries; the trustee should act only in the settlor's best interest. Estateof Giraldin, 199 Cal.App.4th 577 (2011).

If you are the trustee, it may not be possible to avoid litigation but if you follow these tips it will help you avoid litigation traps. If you are a trustee and need legal advice on how to fulfill your duties, feel free to contact us.

Posted by Henry (Hank) J. Moravec, III, a partner at Moravec, Varga & Mooney, A Partnership.
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.