Sunday, January 16, 2011
Monday, November 8, 2010
New California trust case holding that trust was not ambiguous as to predeceased son's issue born out of wedlock.
Citizens Business Bank v. Carrano (California Court of Appeal, Second District, B216632, November 8, 2010) holding that a trust that provided for assets to be distributed to a predeceased child’s issue, which term the trust specifically defined as lineal descendants of all degrees, but expressly excluding persons adopted either into or out of the Trustors’ bloodline, was not unambiguous for failure to address the “special case” of the predeceased child’s out-of-wedlock offspring, did not create a latent ambiguity, and was not in need of interpretation particularly where the Trustors were aware of their predeceased son’s lifestyle and of the several children born to him out of wedlock but nonetheless failed to include trust language excluding such children as beneficiaries, absent the childrens’ adoption into another home.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
California Trust Update: joint tenancy property liable for decedent husband's continuing support payments
This week the Court in Kircher v. Kircher (California Court of Appeal, First District, A125733, November 5, 2010), held that property held in joint tenancy by a husband and wife may be considered when determining the surviving wife’s liability for the husband’s debts after his death pursuant to Cal. Probate Code sections 13550 and 13551. In this case the husband’s wife became obligated to continue making support payments to the husband’s former wife after the husband died.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
FCPA actions spark shareholder suits
FCPA actions spark shareholder suits: XE.com - US bribery investigations spark shareholder suits
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Big firms seek shield against whistleblowers - NYPOST.com
Businesses and law firms asking the SEC to require whistleblowers to report alleged violations internally to the business first: Big firms seek shield against whistleblowers - NYPOST.com. In theory this proposal seems reasonable to me. It's sort of like requiring mediation before litigation.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
New Cal. Trust Case Summary Lickter v. Lickter
Lickter v. Lickter (California Court of Appeal, Third District, C061782, Oct. 27, 2010)
Dave Tate, Esq.
http://davidtate.us/
The grandchildren of a decedent lacked standing to pursue an elder abuse action as the decedent’s successors in interest because they lacked any interest in her estate that could be benefited or impaired by the action. The grandchildren petitioners were trust beneficiaries of specific monetary bequests which had already been paid.
Petitioners argued they had standing as interested persons under Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code §15657.3(d)(2) because they were beneficiaries of decedent’s trust. The court found that just because petitioners were beneficiaries of decedent’s trust did not make them “interested persons” for purposes of pursuing an elder abuse action. To be an “interested person” for purposes of instituting a proceeding under Cal. Prob. Code §48 — and, by extension, under §15657.3(d) — the person must have an interest that may be impaired, defeated, or benefited by the proceeding. Petitioners were former beneficiaries of decedent’s trust only, as they already had been paid the amounts they were owed under the trust. Thus, petitioners no longer had an interest that could be “impaired, defeated, or benefited” by their legal action.
The court also upheld summary judgment against petitioners on their Cal. Prob. Code §259 claim. Pursuant to §259 a person may be deemed to have predeceased a decedent person where it has been proven by clear and convincing evidence that the person is liable for physical abuse, neglect, or fiduciary abuse of the decedent, the person is found to have acted in bad faith, and the person has been found to have been reckless, oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious in the commission of any of these acts upon the decedent. Petitioners argued that they would have standing as beneficiaries under the trust provisions if it was deemed that the alleged abusers, who were also variously remainder beneficiaries, predeceased the decedent. The court held that as a matter of law the petitioners failed to provide sufficient undisputed evidence in support of their Cal. Prob. Code §259 claim.
**********
Dave Tate, Esq.
http://davidtate.us/
The grandchildren of a decedent lacked standing to pursue an elder abuse action as the decedent’s successors in interest because they lacked any interest in her estate that could be benefited or impaired by the action. The grandchildren petitioners were trust beneficiaries of specific monetary bequests which had already been paid.
Petitioners argued they had standing as interested persons under Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code §15657.3(d)(2) because they were beneficiaries of decedent’s trust. The court found that just because petitioners were beneficiaries of decedent’s trust did not make them “interested persons” for purposes of pursuing an elder abuse action. To be an “interested person” for purposes of instituting a proceeding under Cal. Prob. Code §48 — and, by extension, under §15657.3(d) — the person must have an interest that may be impaired, defeated, or benefited by the proceeding. Petitioners were former beneficiaries of decedent’s trust only, as they already had been paid the amounts they were owed under the trust. Thus, petitioners no longer had an interest that could be “impaired, defeated, or benefited” by their legal action.
The court also upheld summary judgment against petitioners on their Cal. Prob. Code §259 claim. Pursuant to §259 a person may be deemed to have predeceased a decedent person where it has been proven by clear and convincing evidence that the person is liable for physical abuse, neglect, or fiduciary abuse of the decedent, the person is found to have acted in bad faith, and the person has been found to have been reckless, oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious in the commission of any of these acts upon the decedent. Petitioners argued that they would have standing as beneficiaries under the trust provisions if it was deemed that the alleged abusers, who were also variously remainder beneficiaries, predeceased the decedent. The court held that as a matter of law the petitioners failed to provide sufficient undisputed evidence in support of their Cal. Prob. Code §259 claim.
**********
Saturday, October 30, 2010
New case: grandchildren lacked standing to bring elder abuse claim
New California case: Lickter v. Lickter (California Court of Appeal, Third District, C061782, Oct. 27, 2010) holding that grandchildren of a decedent lacked standing to bring an elder abuse action because they did not have an interest in her estate that could be benefited or impaired by the action.
New employment case re employees not taking lunch breaks.
New California employment case: Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, Second District, B216004, Oct. 28, 2010).
Holding that an employer was not required to make sure its employees took their lunch breaks. Be careful here, other cases and different fact situations hold otherwise.
Holding that an employer was not required to make sure its employees took their lunch breaks. Be careful here, other cases and different fact situations hold otherwise.
SEC fund set with $452 million to reward whistleblowers
SEC fund set with $452 million to reward whistleblowers, CLICK HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
