Case Summaries

Probate Trusts

[11/06] Aguilar v. Aguilar
Denial of petition to undo a wife's withdrawal of trust property brought by a remainder beneficiary of the trust is reversed and remanded where: 1) even though the property the wife sought to withdraw was her share of the community property, it was too late for her to withdraw it; 2) irrevocable trusts are binding, even on their trustors; and 3) as the life beneficiary, the wife could continue to enjoy the property as held by the trust.

[10/16] Schwartz v. Schwartz
Denial of petition for order directing distribution of trust property and granting respondent's petition to invoke the no-contest clause of the trust is affirmed where the trial court had jurisdiction to deny appellant's petition following his alleged withdrawal of the pleading.

[10/09] Estate of Felder
In a property matter in which objector sought the deposit he paid as a defaulting purchaser of real property owned in part by the estate, probate court order is affirmed where the probate court properly allowed the estate to retain the entirety of objector's $48,000 deposit as damages under Probate Code section 10350 subdivision (e).

[10/01] Haneline Pacific Properties, LLC v. May
Grant of defendant's anti-strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) motion is reversed and remanded where: 1) the gravamen of plaintiff's complaint did not relate to contemplated litigation but attempted at persuasion and negotiation between co-owners of property regarding how best to manage their property; 2) because the communications at issue were not covered by the litigation privilege, the anti-SLAPP motion should not have been granted; and 3) plaintiffs failed to develop an argument regarding entitlement to attorney's fees based on finding that anti-SLAPP motion was "frivolous" or "intended to cause unnecessary delay".

[10/01] Gustafson v. zumBrunnen
In a suit alleging negligence and tortious interference against a bank and an attorney for allowing the withdrawal of funds from a bank account that should have been part of a decedent's estate, dismissal for lack of federal diversity jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(c)(2), the legal representative of an estate suing on its behalf is a citizen of the same state as the decedent; 2) more than one person may be considered a legal representative of an estate for 1332(c)(2) purposes; and 3) under the applicable state law, a suit to bring property into an estate by someone other than the estate's representative was permissible only if the representative had failed to act to secure the property for the estate.

More...