Saturday, October 24, 2009

Will The Estate Tax Disappear: WSJ Article And Our Prediction

The Wall Street Journal has an October 23, 2009 article entitled "Will The Estate Tax Disappear? Changes in the Way Inherited Assets Are Valued Could Cost Heirs and Cause Hassles."

A copy of the article can be found at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704224004574489581033118194.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_personalfinance#articleTabs%3Darticle

By way of background, in 2001, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) was enacted to provide for a 10 year federal estate tax phase-out plan. From 2002 through 2009, the portion of an estate exempt from federal estate tax was gradually increased from $1 million to $3.5 million and the federal estate tax rate decreased from 50% to 45% until the magical year of 2010 when the federal estate tax would disappear for one year.

Under current law, the federal estate tax is scheduled to reappear in 2011 with a much lower federal estate tax exemption of $1 million and a maximum federal estate tax rate as high as 55%, unless legislation is passed to change the law. Notably, the federal gift tax remains in existence in 2010, despite the non-existence of the federal estate tax, with gift tax rates equal to the highest individual income tax rate (expected to be 35% in 2010).

The point raised in the WSJ article is the "step-up in cost basis" that all assets receive when an owner dies. The way the law is currently written, if the estate tax goes away, so does the step-up in cost basis. According to the article, that's where the problem lies.

Step-up means that the property heirs receive is valued as of the date of death. The WSJ article gives an example where if Grandma leaves a grandchild stock selling for $75 a share that was bought in 1970 for $2 per share -- the heir's "cost basis" in the stock is $75. If the grandchild then sells the stock for $80, the taxable gain is $5 per share.

However, if Congress fails to extend the current system for 2010, then at the owner's death all assets would retain their original cost, called "carry-over basis." Under this system the heir's stock would have a cost basis of the original $2 per share rather than $75. If he then sells the stock at $80, the taxable gain would be $78 instead of $5—a huge difference.

Now for the bigger question: is Congress going to allow the estate tax to disappear in 2010?

Although the House and Senate have introduced numerous bills addressing federal estate tax reform, the four main bills to watch are (1) the Pomeroy Bill (H.R. 436), (2) the Baucus Bill (S. 722), (3) the Mitchell Bill (H.R. 498) and (4) the McDermott Bill (H.R. 2023). Further, another source of possible changes to the federal estate tax can be found in the Treasury’s recently released General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2010 Revenue Proposals (the “Greenbook”), which reflects the Obama Administration’s revenue proposals and contemplates federal estate tax reform.

Although nothing is certain -- except death and taxes -- it is anticipated that Congress will pass legislation before the end of the year to continue the current federal estate tax exemption of $3.5 million per individual and a maximum federal estate tax rate of 45% for one more year until a more permanent bill is passed in 2010.

In fact, the House and Senate versions of the 2010 budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 85 and S. Con. Res. 13) both as proposed by the respective Budget Committees and as passed by the House and Senate respectively, allow for 2009 estate tax law to be made permanent.

Overall, I predict that we can expect that the federal estate tax will not disappear in 2010, but will continue in its present form with some modifications.

Posted by Henry Moravec, III. Should you have any questions regarding your own situation, you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210. The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/

Saturday, October 17, 2009

WSJ Article On How Estate Tax Exemption Could Mean There's A Trap In The Bypass Trust Or Credit Shelter Provision Of Your Will

On October 15, 2009, the Wall Street Journal had an article entitled "Is There A Trap Lurking In The Language Of Your Will?" The article is a good reminder as to why it is critical to have your will reviewed every few years, especially if there is a significant event in your life or the law changes.

Why could there be a "trap" in your will? Since 2001, the federal estate tax exemption has stepped up from $675,000 to its current level of $3.5 million per individual or, with planning, $7 million per couple. Thus, people who have not updated their wills could have some unintended consequences if this exemption increase has not been taken into consideration.

For example, in many wills and trusts, lawyers often put a "credit shelter" or "bypass" trust provision into the will of each partner in a married couple. This allows the couple to take full advantage of both individual exemptions. At the death of the first spouse, some assets go into a bypass trust that the other can draw on if necessary. These assets escape tax at the second spouse's death and pass directly to heirs.

As the WSJ article explains, when the estate tax exemption was $2 million and below, bypass trusts were especially important to those who were affluent but not hugely wealthy. Used properly, they helped shelter the greater part of a couple's assets from estate tax. If each spouse instead left all his or her assets outright to the other, in many cases the value of one exemption was lost and unnecessary taxes had to be paid upon the death of the second spouse.

The current trap mainly affects those couples who benefited most from bypass trusts in the past—those with up to, say, $4 million in assets. The problem lies in the wording of many wills drafted even a few years ago, which often directs that the "full amount" of the estate tax exemption go into the bypass trust when the first spouse dies. If the language of the will hasn't changed while the exemption has grown, the bulk of a couple's assets could in some cases wind up in a bypass trust after the death of the first spouse, leaving the survivor with little or nothing outright.

For example: A couple with $4.5 million of assets made wills in 2002, when the exemption was $1 million. At the time, the wife's share consisted of their $750,000 home and $250,000 in other assets, with the rest belonging to her husband. The will's language directs the full exemption amount into a trust at his death, with the income to the spouse for life and the remainder to heirs—which, if he died in 2002, meant $1 million would go into the bypass trust, and $2.5 million would transfer to his wife. But if he dies in 2009 or 2010—assuming the exemption remains at $3.5 million—she would get nothing outright. All of his assets would go directly to the bypass trust.

One New York estate planning attorney was quoted in the article discussing a bad family situation where the husband signed a will in 2000 leaving the "full exemption" amount in trust for his children and the rest of his estate to his wife, thinking this would split his $2 million estate down the middle. When he died in 2008 without updating the will, the exemption had risen to $2 million, so the bulk of the estate bypassed the wife. She was left only with the house and some cash of her own.

As the article notes, writing a will or trust is not something you do once, place in a safety deposit box and then forget about it. It needs to be reviewed when the law changes, when there are life changes and every few years to ensure it reflects your current intentions and plans. Updating your will and trust does not have to be expensive and can save you and your family from facing unintended consequences.

Posted by Henry Moravec, III. Any questions or comments should be directed to: hm@moravecslaw.com or (626) 793-3210. The firm website is

Sunday, October 11, 2009

What Happened To NFL Player Sean Taylor's Mother When He Died Without A Will And Left Entire $5.7 Million Estate To 18 Month Old Daughter?

An article in the September 30, 2009 Washington Post regarding the death of young NFL Redskin player Sean Taylor reminds us what can happen when someone dies without a will or any type of estate plan.

Sean Taylor was a first-round pick in the 2004 draft, signed a seven-year $18 million contract with the Washington Redskins, and became the team's starting free safety after the third game of the season. He quickly gained a reputation as an outstanding athlete, and in 2006 was named to the 2007 Pro Bowl. He was young and probably did not think about estate planning.

Sean Taylor helped support his mother Donna Junor, and bought her a home. On November 26, 2007, a terrible tragedy happened when an armed intruder broke into Taylor's Florida home and shot the football player in his leg. The bullet struck his femoral artery and, despite several hours of surgery, Taylor died at the hospital on November 27. He never regained consciousness.

Taylor died without a will, and Taylor was not married. Most of Taylor's $5.8 million estate went to his 18-month old daughter (now 3) who lives with her mother. His father took possession of the contents of a $328,000 joint account that he shared with the football player, and Taylor's sister received the proceeds of a $650,000 life insurance policy. His mother, however, received nothing. Nor did his grandmother, great-grandmother, two of his half-siblings or any of the cousins or relatives who had grown accustomed to his financial assistance.

According to the article, Taylor's mother was left with possessions that carry costs and fees that she says exceed her income as a substitute teacher since she cannot find a full-time job. She could not pay the real-estate taxes last year on the townhouse she bought in 2005 with the $222,000 her son had given her. Another tax bill is due at the end of November. Taylor's mother said she doesn't have any of his memorabilia, either. All of it either was auctioned to raise money for the estate, or, she says, collected by Taylor's father or the mother of his daughter.

Taylor sister was quoted in the article stating that she understood the frustration over the way her late brother's assets were distributed since she thought he would have wanted it to be different. The article can be found at:

Attorney Comment: The article painted a picture of financial hardship for the mother and it is hard to say whether anyone should feel sorry for her or not. Nevertheless, the article is a reminder of the necessity for planning especially when there are assets and family members who you want to provide for in the future. It certainly is not wise for the daughter to have access to the entire estate when she turns 18 years' old. Nor does it seem like it would have been Taylor's plan to leave his mother nothing from his estate.

However, it is clear that Taylor could have better protected himself, his daughter, his mother, his family, and his assets by making an investment in his estate plan before his untimely death. It is a reminder for all of us to take the time and energy to engage in estate planning.

Posted by Henry Moravec, III. Any questions or comments should be directed to: hm@moravecslaw.com or (626) 793-3210. The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Astor's Son Convicted Of Stealing From Mother's $180 Million Estate When She Had Alzheimer's Disease

In a rare criminal case involving a will dispute, Anthony Marshall, the 85 year old son of Brooke Astor (legendary New York society matriarch) was convicted on Thursday, October 8 after a 5 month jury trial.

Mr. Marshall was found guilty of 14 of the 16 counts against him, including: (1) one first-degree grand larceny charge (the most serious he faced); (2) offering to file a false instrument, and (3) conspiracy. A second defendant in the case, Francis X. Morrissey Jr., a lawyer who did estate planning for Mrs. Astor, was convicted of forgery charges. Sentencing is set for December 8, 2009 in the New York court.

Jurors convicted Mr. Marshall him of giving himself an unauthorized raise of about $1 million for managing his mother’s finances. Prosecutors contended that Mrs. Astor’s Alzheimer’s was so advanced at age 101 when her will was amended that there was no way she could have consented to this raise and understood the other complex changes to her will and the financial decisions that benefited Mr. Marshall.

Mrs. Astor, whose fortune was estimated at more than $180 million when she died two years ago at 105, was well known for channeling large sums toward New York charities and cultural institutions like the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Bronx Zoo.

Defense lawyers had argued that Mrs. Astor was lucid when she bequeathed money to her only child Mr. Marshall, and that he had legal power to give him gifts while she was alive. Mrs. Astor's last will, dated in 2002, left millions of dollars to her favorite charities. Changes to that document in 2003 and 2004 awarded Mr. Marshall all of his mother's property, instead of placing it in a trust as she had initially stipulated.

The jurors heard testimony from prominent friends of Mrs. Astor regarding her Alzheimer's and inability to recognize them. The witnesses included Henry Kissinger, Barbara Walters and Annette de la Renta. The prosecution portrayed Mr. Marshall as driven by his wife, Charlene, to obtain more money and obtain control of the estate.

Today's New York Times article on this case can be found at:

Usually these types of allegations are handled in probate court. The civil case will now proceed now that the criminal case is concluded. One of the core issues in the civil case will be whether Mrs. Astor was mentally competent when she signed the 2002 will, which was amended in late 2003 and again in early 2004. Those later revisions gave her son more control over her estate, and in the process she reduced the amount of money she left to the New York universities, libraries, parks and museums she had spent much of her life supporting. There is an earlier version of the will which directed more money to charity.

Posted by Henry Moravec, III. Any questions or comments should be directed to: hm@moravecslaw.com or (626) 793-3210. The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

WSJ Article "Transferring Wealth Via The Bank of Mom & Dad" - Low Interest Rate Loans Via SCINs, GRATs & IDGTs

The October 3, 2009 Wall Street Journal had an article entitled "Transferring Wealth Via the Bank of Mom & Dad." The article addresses in detail some sophisticated estate planning tools (SCINs, GRATs and IDGTs) that are used by closely held family business companies and those who want to transfer more wealth to their heirs tax-free. The article addresses how falling interest rates can be used to transfer more wealth to family members tax-free via intra-family loans and transactions.

A copy of the article can be found at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125452042817860431.html

The article gives an example regarding the applicable federal rates in October 2009. Under the rates set monthly by the IRS, you can make a nine-year fixed-rate loan to your child for as low as 2.63%. This allows the child to borrow at a very low rate. In addition, you and your spouse could forgive up to $52,000 of the loan annually ($26,000 if the child is single), reducing their future estate tax liability without triggering current gift taxes. There are numerous rules regarding written agreements, collection of payments and the loan itself that need to be followed so the IRS does not accuse you of planning it as a gift all along.

There are three tools discussed in the article. A Self-Canceling Installment Note (SCIN) is a technique used to sell an asset, usually shares or partnership interests in a closely held family business, in exchange for an interest-bearing promissory note. An appropriately structured SCIN will remove the future appreciation in the family business from the seller’s estate. In addition, if the seller dies prior to the maturity of the promissory note, the then-outstanding principal amount of the note may be excluded from the seller’s gross estate. The article makes a SCIN look simpler than it is and there are numerous requirements that must be met in order for the IRS to respect the validity of the cancellation provision.

A Grantor-Retained Annuity Trust (GRAT) may enable you to transfer future appreciation on an asset to your heirs. If you outlive the term of the trust, most commonly two or three years, then a portion of the gain on the assets will move to your heirs free of gift or estate tax. If you die before the term of the trust expires, however, the assets revert to your estate and are taxable.

An Intentionally Defective Grantor Trust (IDGT) involves making a partial gift to a trust, which then purchases the rest of the asset in installments. IDGTs (sometimes pronounced "idjits") are sometimes preferred to GRATs, because IDGTs move an asset out of your estate immediately. There are advantages and disadvantages of the IDGT technique which are not addressed in the WSJ article.

The costs and benefits of a SCIN, GRAT or an IDGT must be carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In appropriate circumstances, these tools provide families and family business owners with valuable estate planning tools to transfer the business or wealth to the next generation.

As with any sophisticated estate planning: do not try this at home or try to do it yourself. These tools demand the expertise of a trust attorney who specializes in estate planning.

The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/. The firm is located at 2233 Huntington Drive #17, San Marino, CA 91108. There is ample free parking adjacent to the firm's office.

Posted by Henry (Hank) Moravec, III. Any questions or comments should be directed to: hm@moravecslaw.com or contact Hank (626) 793-3210 for a complimentary consultation about your own situation. The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/

The firm is a boutique estates and trust law practice specializing only in Estate Planning, Probate, Trust Administration, Beneficiary and Trustee Representation, Tax Law, and Nonprofit Law.

The office is located in San Marino, California, a suburb of Los Angeles in the San Gabriel area located 20 minutes from downtown Los Angeles. The firm represents clients throughout California and its attorneys appears in probate court throughout Southern California (Pasadena estate planning attorney, Los Angeles estate planning attorney, Santa Monica estate planning attorney, Pomona estate planning attorney, Torrance estate planning attorney, Long Beach estate planning attorney, Van Nuys estate planning attorney, Santa Barbara estate planning attorney, Orange County estate planning attorney, Riverside estate planning attorney, San Bernardino estate planning attorney).

Saturday, October 3, 2009

California Court Rules Daughter Cannot Annul Father Richard Pryor's Marriage Or Set Aside Bequests To Stepmother After His Death

On September 28, 2009, the California Court of Appeal issued two companion decisions relating to the estate of Grammy award-winning comedian and actor Richard Pryor.

The court rejected an attempt by Pryor's eldest daughter Elizabeth to annul her father’s marriage to stepmother Jennifer Pryor and void certain gifts and bequests to her stepmother. The daughter's goal was to invalidate Pryor's most recent will and reinstate an earlier will in which he split his fortune between his six children. The Pryor probate litigation has been pending for more than four years.

Richard Pryor married Jennifer Pryor in 1981 and they divorced one year later. Shortly thereafter, Richard Pryor was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and his condition began to deteriorate. His ex-wife Jennifer Pryor became Richard Pryor’s care custodian in 1994. At that time, there was an earlier will in place in which he split his fortune between his six children.

In 2001, Richard and Jennifer Pryor were remarried pursuant to a confidential marriage license. Elizabeth Pryor apparently did not learn of this marriage until after her father died of a heart attack in 2005. By this time -- both before and after his remarriage -- Richard Pryor had revised his estate plan to leave substantial assets to Jennifer Pryor rather than his six children.

After his death, daughter Elizabeth prior filed two actions. First, styling herself as successor in interest to her father, she petitioned to annul the marriage under Family Code Sec. 2211(d) on the grounds of fraud. She claimed her father's signature on the marriage certificate was forged.

Second, she filed a probate proceeding seeking to set aside various gifts, bequests, and transfers of property or assets made by her father to Jennifer between 1994 and 2005. Legally, she was seeking to use Probate Code Section 21350 to presumptively disqualify Jennifer, who was a care custodian, from receiving a donative transfer from a dependent or elder adult. Elizabeth argued that her stepmother Jennifer may not invoke the spousal exception to this presumption because the marriage was the product of undue influence and fraud.

Elizabeth did not win on either ground in the family law or probate courts. The same judge presided over both matters in the superior court. She then appealed.

On appeal, Elizabeth lost both cases. In the family law matter which is the subject of a companion appeal, Pryor v. Pryor (No. B207398), the Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of Elizabeth's petition to annul the 2001 marriage between Jennifer and Richard on the ground of fraud.

In the probate matter, the Court of Appeal declined to recognize an exception to the rule under Probate Code Section 21350 that a spouse may receive a donative transfer from a dependent or elder adult for marriages allegedly obtained by fraud and undue influence. The appellate court found no support in the language of section 21351, subdivision (a), or in the legislative history, which would make the spousal exception to the presumption of invalidity unavailable to a spouse who allegedly persuaded the transferor to marry through undue influence or fraud.

A copy of Estate of Pryor, CA Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, Div. 4, Case No. B207402 can be found at:

Attorney Comments: First, this case brings to light the conflict that can exist between children of a prior marriage and a stepparent. Second, the failure to disclose to the children the marriage and the changes to the will or estate plan can also increase the likelihood of probate litigation.

Third, there are ways to document that there is no incapacity or fraud. For example, doctors can be used to assess the capacity of a person to make a will or trust. In some cases, there can be limited ability to speak (which happens in some advanced muscular sclerosis cases).

Because most trouble arises from disappointed potential beneficiaries, a doctor (such as a psychiatrist or neurologist specializing in geriatrics) as part of his examination should ask whether the testator has ever made a will before and who is now going to be excluded and why. Doctors and attorneys must understand the legal tests for testamentary capacity.

Attorneys can also document these issues and show their client's intent and capacity in that they understand their prior wills, their assets and the proposed disposition. Videotaping may be used to help prevent accusations of forgeries at a later date. In other words, good planning can help minimize the risks of probate litigation after the death of a loved one and provide strong evidence in the event of a challenge.

Posted by Henry Moravec, III. Any questions or comments should be directed to: hm@moravecslaw.com or (626) 793-3210. The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Estate Litigation: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Children Wrangle In Court Over Estate

Once estate or probate litigation happens, there are probably many silent prayers that there be a peaceful resolution. Litigation among family members is often very stressful, disruptive and sometimes emotionally painful.

It's not often, however, that such prayers become public. On September 29, 2009, the Rev. Joseph Lowery, a follower of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. invoked the spirit of the civil rights icon and his wife, Coretta, in praying for a peaceful resolution to the legal battle among the King children. He led dozens of clergy, civil rights veterans and others in prayer at the Kings’ crypt in Atlanta.

If the King family can have a family and legal dispute over the valuable estates of Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King -- it shows that anyone can. It is apparent that the lawsuit is embarrassing to those who are intent on preserving Kings' legacy.

In July 2008, the lawsuit was filed in Fulton County, Georgia with two of the siblings claiming that a third has misappropriated money from their parents' estates. Bernice King and Martin Luther King III charge that in late June 2008, their brother Dexter improperly transferred "substantial funds" from Bank of America to accounts he controls. The Bank of America account contains funds from the estate of Coretta Scott King, who died in 2006 at age 78.

Bernice is administrator of her late mother's estate, while Dexter is president of the Estate of Martin Luther King Jr. corporation -- of which the siblings are all shareholders. The operation of that business is in disarray, with the siblings "deadlocked" in its management, according to the complaint, which charges that the company's assets are "being misapplied or wasted."

Lawsuits often result in cross-complaints and this was no exception. Dexter countersued, claiming that his siblings had improperly borrowed office space and company cars from the King Center, an Atlanta civil rights museum. He also accused Bernice of corrupting their father’s legacy by acting as host of an anti-gay-marriage rally at the center.

Recently, on September 14, 2009, Judge Ural Glanville ordered the children of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to meet in their capacity as the sole shareholders of the corporation that manages their iconic father's estate. The three siblings have not held such a meeting since 2004. The removal of Dexter King as the estate's administrator was unlikely because that would require a meeting of the board of directors.

Judge Glanville also ruled in favor of dismissing some of the allegations against Dexter King, but left the question of whether he failed to act in the best interest of his father's incorporated estate to a jury. A trial on the allegation of breach of fiduciary duty could happen as early as next month.

Attorney Comments: First, like many estate lawsuits, this occurred after the death of the children's mother, Coretta Scott King, in 2006 and another sister Yolanda in 2007. The parent or older sibling is often the glue that is holding the family together and informally resolving disputes.

Second, the "breach of fiduciary duty" cause of action alleged against the brother Dexter King is a reminder to all estate trustees that they should appreciate the fiduciary nature of his or her position. The trustee may understand his or her concrete duties and responsibilities -- but when emotions are involved and family or beneficiary disputes arise, he or she may lose sight of their "fiduciary duty."

What is fiduciary duty? A fiduciary's duty requires honesty of course. In addition, it requires the trustee to have undivided and undiluted loyalty to those whose interests the fiduciary is to protect. Thus, the trustee must treat each beneficiary with loyalty and protect their interests. This becomes more complicated when the trustee is also a beneficiary. A trustee cannot favor his or her own interest over another beneficiary's interest. The trustee is not entitled to treat the property of the trust as if it were his or her own. The trustee is wearing two hats (trustee and beneficiary) and the trustee hat imposes fiduciary duties of loyalty to the other beneficiaries. The greatest exposure to litigation for a trustee arises from his or her fiduciary duties.

Not even the slightest hint of self-dealing or unfairness is acceptable in the relationship between a fiduciary and those whose interests he or she is to protect. It is sometimes difficult for a fiduciary to recognize a problem when it occurs and it can be more difficult to be truly objective. It is therefore important for trustees to carefully review their financial decisions with experienced counsel in order to insure that they are acting appropriately.

One advantage in using an attorney as counsel rather than an accountant or another professional is the protection provided by the attorney-client privilege. All communications between the trustee and his or her attorney will be privileged and not discoverable in the event of litigation. A communication with the CPA, however, where the trustee/beneficiary writes emails that he will never turn over the family house to another beneficiary without a fight could be discovered in future litigation.

In certain cases, for example, trustee's legal counsel may advise the trustee to obtain a release from the beneficiary or seek a court order before taking certain action. In other cases, the attorney may advise the trustee to immediately dispose of certain real property to a beneficiary so that the estate is no longer liable for that property (taxes, insurance, liability, etc.) and to minimize the risk that the beneficiary will have any future claim against the estate or the trustee.

Posted by Henry (Hank) J. Moravec, III, a partner at Moravecs, A Professional Law Corporation. 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.

He focuses his practice on Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Administration, Beneficiary and Trustee Representation, Tax Law, and Nonprofit Law. He represents clients throughout Southern California and his office is conveniently located for clients in the Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino Counties.

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 to request a consultation.

The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/. The firm is located at 2233 Huntington Drive, Suite 17, San Marino, California 91108. There is ample free parking adjacent to the firm's office.

The office is located in San Marino, California, a suburb of Los Angeles in the San Gabriel area located 20 minutes from downtown Los Angeles. The firm represents clients throughout California and its attorneys appears in probate court throughout Southern California (Pasadena probate attorney, Los Angeles probate attorney, Santa Monica probate attorney, Pomona probate attorney, Torrance probate attorney, Long Beach probate attorney, Van Nuys probate attorney, Santa Barbara probate attorney, Orange County probate attorney, Riverside probate attorney, San Bernardino probate attorney)