What Did You Expect??? Expectations of a trial lawyer in California Trust and Will Disputes

Posted by Keith A. Davidson on April 15, 2013

It has recently come to my attention that not everyone is accustomed to working with lawyers as part of their daily lives.  That’s a shame since we are so wonderful to be around. Us lawyers are used to working with and around other lawyers, so we sometimes forget that not everyone is accustomed to our ways.  But if you haven’t worked with a lawyer before, what should you expect when you hire a lawyer to handle a Trust or Will dispute for you?  Here’s some idea of what your experience should look like:

question marks.jpg

1. The Consultation

First, you need to have a meaningful consultation with the lawyer to evaluate your case.  By meaningful, I mean giving the important facts to the lawyer so he or she can properly evaluate your case.  Don’t give too many facts, but don’t give too few either.  You may think that every fact of your case is important—it isn’t.  Well not to the legal analysis anyway.  That’s not to say what you are thinking and feeling are not important—they are.  But a legal analysis is a different animal that looks only to certain facts…not ALL the facts.

Once you have the facts out, the lawyer should discuss your potential claims and the likelihood of success (the good), any downsides, potential defenses or counter suits that the other party may file against you (the bad), and the costs of moving forward into litigation (the ugly). 

2. Starting the Lawsuit

Once you approve moving forward, then the necessary petition hould be prepared (usually takes about a week or two—not a month or two), filed with the Court and you will get your first hearing date.  Nothing happens at the first hearing date, it’s just a status conference for the court to determine who is objecting.  

3. Discovery

Your lawyer should then start drafting and serving written discovery requests, seeking whatever evidence you require to prove-up your petition.  We like to have a discovery plan written out so we know what discovery needs to be conducted.  Sometimes we only need to serve some simple requests to the opposing party, sometimes we need subpoena's, sometimes it's both.  Plus there are usually depositions to take.  All this discovery can easily take 3 to 6 months, or more, to complete.  And then the opposing party will likely serve you with discovery, which should be responded to timely by your lawyer.

4. Expert Witnesses

Next comes the expert witnesses.  In most Trust and Will disputes there is an argument as to the capacity of the decedent.  An expert witness is required to testify in Court on the decedent’s capacity. 

5. Trial

At some point, a trial date is requested from the Court.  If you file your Trust contest in Los Angeles County, then the timeframe to get a trial date will be much longer than one filed in Riverside or San Bernardino Counties.  All of our California courts are backed logged due to the budget crisis, but Los Angeles County is one of the most impacted. 

6. Mediation and Settlement

Usually the Court inquires, and sometimes insists, that the parties go to mediation to try to settle the case before trial.  Most cases do settle before trial—that is very common.  So a mediation can be scheduled at some point to try to reach a resolution.

All told, a Trust or Will dispute can take between 1 and 3 years to complete if it goes all the way to trial.  

This is just a general overview, there can be any number of issues in a case that would change the general information set forth above.  But hopefully this gives you some idea of the process, and what to expect from your lawyer.  

5 Essential Elements for a Slam Dunk Case

Posted by Keith A. Davidson on September 21, 2012

Think you have a slam dunk legal case?  Well in my 12 years of litigation experience (all in California) I’d say there is no such thing.  But if you were to have a slam dunk case, at a minimum you would need at least five different things to come together in your favor.  Here are the five essential elements for a slam-dunk case:

  1. The Law.  The cornerstone to every slam-dunk case is having a good legal argument.  Strike that, a slam-dunk case must have a GREAT legal argument.  You would have to have the law squarely on your side.  But that law, by itself is just one element—you need more than that.
  2. The Facts.  The law is never applied in a vacuum.  There has to be facts that support the legal argument.  And typically facts can be all over the place, some good, some bad, some downright terrible.  To have a slam-dunk you would have to have all the facts on your side and they’d all have to be good.  A caveat: every party always thinks they have nothing but good facts on their side.  This is rarely the case.  Plus, facts can be interpreted differently by different people—including  judges and juries.  To have a slam-dunk case, the facts have to be indisputably good.  But facts alone are not enough either.
  3. The Equity (i.e., fairness).  Judges and juries are people and people want to right a wrong.  This means, to really persuade someone you have to be able to show them the inherent fairness of your position.  Why is your side the fair result?  Not just fair to you, but objectively viewed as being the “right” answer.  You can never underestimate the power of equity.  Even in the best of cases, a fair result is highly persuasive and can even trump the law and the bad facts. Most judges and juries find the fair result in their guts, and then back their way into the legal reasoning and support for the equitable (fair) position.
  4. Money.  Lawsuits of every kind are expensive.  The pursuit of justice takes a toll, and that toll is usually felt most keenly in the pocket book.  Even if the law, facts, and fairness line up in your favor, your slam-dunk case will die a premature death if you don’t have the money to pursue the case as far as is necessary to resolve the dispute—that means getting to an agreeable settlement or trial.  Without either (1) money, or (2) some alternate arrangement to pay for legal services (such as contingency fees for example), your slam-dunk case is just slam sunk.
  5. Time.  To successfully see a case to trial you have to be a master guru of patience.  In our court system, it can easily take 3 to 5 YEARS before you get to trial.  For example, on a case we recently filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in July, the opposing party filed a motion to challenge the pleadings (called a demurrer in legal jargon) and received a hearing date of April 5, 2013.  So we now have to wait until next year just to find out if the defendant will be required to answer the lawsuit.  That means we can’t hope to even go to trial for a very long time—i.e. years from now.  If you don’t have the time, your case won’t make it to the finish line.

In most cases you’re lucky to just have one or two of these items on your side.  In fact, in a recent case we resolved, the client had the first three, which is rare.  But there was a lack of money and time, so the case had to settle.  In other cases we go to trial, but the result is unknown (until a judgment is reached) because of weak facts, law, or equities.  I have yet to see all five of these elements come together.  But if a case ever does meet all five, then you may have the first ever slam-dunk case.  Then again, you may not because nothing is ever certain in litigation.

Assets in Trust and Will Litigation

Posted by Keith A. Davidson on June 11, 2012

 

Assets in Trust and Will Litigation

Will and Trust Litigation by Stewart Albertson

Posted by Keith A. Davidson on June 08, 2012

         

Will and Trust Litigation

Deadline to Sue: a discussion of the statutes of limitation in California Trust and Will cases.

Posted by Keith A. Davidson on May 09, 2012

         

Like nearly every legal claim or cause of action, Trust and Will lawsuits carry various limitation periods within which to file suit. The complexity lies in how the various limitations work, when they apply, and how they overlap in this area.

Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Admitting Statements of a Decedent at Trial

Posted by Keith A. Davidson on March 09, 2012

Objection, hearsay!  We hear that term “hearsay” all the time—in the movies, on T.V., and in real life court proceedings.  The idea behind the “hearsay” rule, which prevents certain statements and documents from being admitted as evidence, is that not everything people say is reliable or even truthful (imagine that).  As straightforward as that rule may sound, it’s much harder to apply—and is the bane of all law students taking an evidence course for the first time.

Judge Noonan, writing for the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, just clarified an issue on hearsay, the so-called state of mind exception, in a case titled Wagner v. County of Maricopa (a case that originated in Phoenix, AZ).

In Wagner, the Plaintiff wanted to introduce various statements made by the decedent (prior to death obviously) about his impression of being imprisoned for a few days.  The decedent was diagnosed with various mental issues, including being disoriented, paranoid and psychotic.  He had wandered away from home and was arrested after being mistaken for a burglar and then resisting arrest.  In jail, he was placed in isolation, after psychological examination, and then forced to change from civilian clothes to jail-issue clothes, which included wearing pink underwear (?).  The decedent resisted the clothes change and was forcibly undressed, and then dressed in jail garb.  Due to his psychological condition, decedent thought that he was going to be raped by the officers and was traumatized by the experience.

Decedent’s mother bailed him out of prison after a few days and was later involved in a minor car accident with decedent in her car.  Decedent was told that the police would be called to the scene of the accident.  The decedent, in a state of panic, then ran for 4 or 5 miles away from the car accident where he collapsed and died of a heart attack.

The decedent’s family sued and wanted to have decedent’s sister testify to the statements decedent made about his impression of being imprisoned and being forced to change clothes.  The statements were meant to establish the decedent’s state-of-mind about being imprisoned.  The statements themselves, that decedent was being raped by the officers, was obviously false and not meant to prove they were true.

The trial court excluded the testimony on the theory that the statements were hearsay and could not be used to prove the truth of what was said.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, saying that statements such as these made by the decedent, were not hearsay.  Why?  Because they are not used to prove they are true—no one was asserting the truth of the statements.  Rather the statements were being used to establish the decedent’s state of mind at that time.  And statements that would otherwise be hearsay are admissible into evidence when they go to the state of mind of a decedent.

This state-of-mind ruling provides a great exception to the hearsay rule, especially in the world of Trust and Will litigation, where a decedent’s state of mind is almost always a central issue to California Trust and Will contests.  As long as you aren’t using the decedent’s statements to prove what they said was truthful, only that is establishes their state-of-mind and explains their actions, then the exception applies.

The Lives Behind the Words: How California Trust and Will Lawsuits Affect our lives.

Posted by Keith A. Davidson on December 05, 2011

We should never forget when reading a written decision by any Court that there are people—real, live, breathing people—behind the words laid down in the Court’s opinion.  I was recently reminded of this fact when I received a call from Tom Giraldin, son of William A. Giraldin, whose estate I discussed in an earlier blog post.

The Estate of William A. Giraldin has been the source of many year’s worth of litigation over various Trust issues (discuss in more detail in my previous article).  And in that previous article, I said that a son of William Giraldin, specifically Tim, was sued by “his siblings.”  Well I had that slightly wrong.  Tim was not sued by all of his siblings, but actually sued by four (namely, Patricia Gray, Christine Giraldin, Mike Giraldin and Philip Giraldin) of the Giraldin’s seven older children—my mistake.

But that’s not the interesting part.  The more interesting part is talking to Tom Giraldin and getting an inside look into the people and family relationships that underlie the Appellate Court’s opinion in Estate of Giraldin.  What type of person was William A. Giraldin (a strong business man), how did the facts come about (years of living), and did the Appellate Court get it right (yes, so says Tom)?

If you think about it, a lot of actions have to occur before a California Trust or Will case is heard and decided by the Appellate Court.  People have to live their lives, things have to happen in those lives, someone dies, people get upset and sue, the lawsuit takes over five (5) years to wind its way through the Courts, a party loses, decides to appeal, and then we get the Appellate Court opinion—coming at the end of what may be over a decade (or more) of actions in the making (both inside and outside of Court).  Whew!  Makes me tired just thinking about it.

But the lives lived and the things that occur during those lives are the substance of these cases.  And while the Appellate Court may provide us with a pretty cut-and-dry rendition of the facts, life is never so cut and dry.  And the way in which each party, each child, sees those facts is also very different—which is why the lawsuit is filed in the first place.

So the next time you read about the facts of a case in the Courts, in the newpaper, on the web, or in someone’s blog; its interesting to keep in mind that these are people we are reading about and they may have plenty of other facts behind the case that never come to light.

Expect the Unexpected...And other clichés that ring true in trust and will lawsuits.

Posted by Keith A. Davidson on July 01, 2011

If you only knew what can happen in the life of a typical trust or will lawsuit—or civil lawsuit for that matter.  Bismark famously said that “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.”  Add litigation to that list. 

But then again, every case is different.  Where some cases seem to proceed to trial quickly (by “quickly” I mean within a year or two), others dwell in the Court process for years and then seem to fade away or go to trial.  Either way, the financial and emotional costs of these cases can be substantial.

To provide some perspective on the life-cycle of a litigation matter, we have developed a “What to Expect” series of handouts for our clients and we have shared them on this blog before.  I now want to share them again because it is critically important for people to understand what to expect in litigation (see handouts here). 

Litigation moves at a snail’s pace.  It has many twists and turns and unexpected surprises along the way.  And the Court gives out what seems like an endless number of continuances when requested by one of the parties.  Of course, our system is built around the notion of Due Process of Law.  Due process is meant to ensure that everyone is treated equally and fairly and that each party has an opportunity to be heard.  But it can be frustrating to experience due process—and expensive too. 

As my partner is fond of saying “Litigation is a marathon, not a sprint.”  A marathon requires a slow steady pace designed to allow a runner to maintain a jog over long distances; as opposed to a quick sprint where you run as fast as you can for a short distance.  However, in litigation, where matters are stressful and potentially costly, most people would like to end the matter as quickly as possible.  I understand that sentiment and desire completely.  Unfortunately, I cannot end a case any sooner than the process will allow.

And so we trod along.  But we do so with our client’s purpose in mind.  We are here to help and to fight for justice and fairness.  As long as that is our goal, we have a great chance at reaching it…eventually.

The Trust and Will Shell Game: The Who, What, When, Where, and Why of Contesting California Trusts and Wills

Posted by Keith A. Davidson on May 04, 2011

Trust and Will litigation is a bit of a shell game.  You remember the shell game, where a pea is placed under one of three shells and then the shells are re-sorted as quickly as possible so as to lose track of which shell has the pea.  The observer is then asked to pick the shell with the pea—it’s a 1 in 3 shot of getting it right.

The reason Trust and Will litigation is like a shell game is because so much depends on how assets are titled at death (see our earlier blog post on this issue).  The Trusts and Wills are the shells and the assets are the peas. 

For example, a decedent may die with a Trust, but if nothing is titled in the name of the Trust, then there may be nothing to contest regarding the Trust.

And a Will only controls what is in the estate, which means only those assets titled in the decedent’s name alone (this excludes property titled in joint tenancy, by beneficiary designation, or in the name of a trust).  However, in most cases, people have “pour-over” Wills that pass all assets from their estate to their Trust.  Thus, a Trust may not have any assets to begin with, but can obtain assets from a pour-over Will.

Sound confusing?  It is.  So where do you start when you want to contest a Trust and a Will (or is it a Trust or a Will, or just a Trust, or maybe just the Will…)?

Step One.  You have to determine where the assets are located.  Often, they are scattered all over the place, with some in a Trust, some in the decedent’s own name (so those are in the probate estate), and some passing by joint tenancy with right of survivorship (which pass outside the Will and the Trust). 

Step Two.  Once you have identified where the assets are located, you need to know what documents you are working with.  Is there a Trust, what does it say, and when was it last amended?  Is there a Will, what does it say?  What about joint tenancy property?

Step Three.  You have to decide what to attack first.  Typically that would be the vehicle that has the assets.  So if the assets are in the Trust, contest the Trust.  If the assets are in the probate estate, contest the Will.  (You'll have to open probate to contest a Will, if probate is not already opened.)  If the assets are in joint tenancy, you have to file that lawsuit in the probate estate (see Probate Code Section 5302), but it will take clear and convincing evidence to dislodge the joint tenancy.  Sometimes, you will want to attack all three at the same time if there is a chance that assets may pass from one vehicle to another (such as from a pour-over Will to a Trust).  Other times, you will attack just one and save the other contests for later if the need arises. 

The mistake you want to avoid is attacking a vehicle that has no assets and never will have any assets.  So if an asset is passing by joint tenancy (which passes outside a Will and a Trust) and you want to attack that transfer (i.e. the joint tenancy transfer, such as a jointly held bank account), then you have to file a lawsuit in the probate estate and request that the joint tenancy asset be returned to the estate.  If you are successful, then (and only then) the asset would pass by Will, if the Decedent had a Will, or by intestate succession if there is no Will.  You most likely do NOT want to contest the Decedent’s Trust in this scenario because the Trust does not own the joint tenancy asset.  In fact, the Trust has nothing to do with joint tenancy assets in most cases.

The bottom line is to map out the location of the assets and the documents you are contesting.  Of course, there has to be a reasonable legal basis for the contest and you have to watch out for any no-contest clauses (see our earlier posts on no-contest clauses).  But once the facts are mapped out, you can then plan your attack on the document that holds the asset(s). 

Legal Lingerie: Fighting Over Personal Property In California Trusts and Wills

Posted by Keith A. Davidson on April 26, 2011

No one really wants to inherit their parents unmentionables after they die (at least I don't), but what about all the other personal items left behind?  From jewelry, furniture and antiques, to china, silverware, dishes and momentos, everything is an object over which a fight can ensue between siblings. 

The authority in the area of transferring personal items is a book, and now a website, called "Who Gets Grandma's Yellow Pie Plate."  It is a great example of how family discord can erupt over the smallest of items.  Of course, "smallest" in terms of value in a monetary sense, but not so small in terms of sentimental value-which is precisely why these fights can be so personal. 

Exactly who is entitled to a decedent's personal items (referred to as “tangible personal property” in legal jargon) and how is that property passed out after death?  Well there is a right way and a wrong way, and it’s hard to enforce the right way.

A few right ways.

Technically the property is supposed to be inventoried and then distributed according to the Trust or Will terms.  If the Trust or Will provides for specific items to go to specific people, then that must occur.  If not, then the beneficiaries can discuss who wants what and the Trustee or Executor must make a final decision in the event of a conflict.  Any property left over is sold and the proceeds from sale split evenly among the beneficiaries.

Or better yet, the parent or grandparent can give an item of personal property before death.  This is ideal because (1) it prevents any arguments relating to the parent's intent, and (2) it allows the parent or grandparent to enjoy the act of giving (and witness the excitement of receiving) the gift.  It also ensures that the gift will be made.

The Wrong Way.

Imagine the decedent's heirs going through his or her house and randomly taking personal objects without any authorization or direction.  They refuse to follow the terms of the Trust or Will and they fail to wait until a Trustee or Executor is in place to sort out the details.  Once a Trustee is in place, it is too late, the property is gone and trying to recover it is nearly impossible. 

The problem with the wrong way to pass personal items is that (1) it happens all the time, and (2) it’s hard to prevent.  It really depends on the people involved.  Will they wait to play by the rules or are they just going to do what they like?  And the costs involved in trying to recover personal property is far too high to justify doing it in most cases. 

At a minimum, a Trustee or Executor should try to secure the decedent's home as soon as possible and take possession of the personal items as quickly as possible.  Of course, it’s not always so easy to know which personal items people will want.  Sometimes it can be the least obvious item, such as a pie plate. 

Brain Power-How Personality Effects Trust and Will Contests

Posted by Keith A. Davidson on April 05, 2011

You don't need to have legal experience to know that different people act in different ways to any given situation.  Especially stressful situations.  Lawsuits are very stressful for most people involved in them.  Trust and Will related lawsuits are even more so because it typically involves family, meaning family relationships and long-standing family dynamics that have nothing to do with the present lawsuit.

The Telegraph just published an interesting article written by David Eaglemann on the human brain titled "The Human Brain: turning our minds to the law."  It is a fascinating look at how understanding the brain can help with legal disputes.  It also challenges some of the fundamental "truths" the legal system implicity applies to cases and the people involved in those cases.  The law, after all, is about people.  It is supposed to help people and resolve problems that cannot be solved without Court intervention.  As such, the nature of people, how each person thinks and acts, should be taken into account.

I really like this artcle and recommend it to anyone trying to figure out the nature of law as it applies to people.  Not that it can be figured out, but maybe a little understanding goes a long way.

 

May The Best Contestant Win...Contesting A California Trust vs. A California Will

Posted by Keith A. Davidson on February 21, 2011

Listen to Keith A. Davidson summarize his blog post on the difference in contesting a California Trust and a California Will.

Which is better—A Trust or Will if a fight takes place for your assets after your death?   One of the primary reasons people create Living Trusts (also called Revocable Trusts and Revocable Living Trusts) is to avoid probate. And Trusts can also help in reducing or, in some cases, eliminating estate taxes. But can a Trust also help discourage a contest over an individual’s intended disposition of his or her assets at death?  The answer is a resounding “maybe.”  Let me explain.

Some people believe Trusts better protect against a contest because Trusts are not administered with court supervision. Once the person who created the Trust (referred to as the Settlor) dies, the Successor Trustee begins administering the assets, gathering them up and preparing these assets for distribution to the Trust’s beneficiaries (usually family members), without any need for court supervision. On the other hand, a California Will can only be administered in probate, which requires court supervision. In fact, an Executor is not even appointed to act under a Will until a Petition for Probate is filed with the court and the court appoints the person as executor. Once in court, anyone who wishes to challenge the Will has a ready forum in which to do so. In other words, a contestant normally does not need to open the court process pertaining to a Will—they merely need to show up and file an objection in the probate court.

In contrast, contesting (or challenging) the terms of a Trust is not quite so easy. Trusts can be challenged in court and trustees' actions can be challenged in court, but the person wishing to contest a trust, or its trustee, must take the initiative and bring the matter to court by filing an appropriate petition.  Thus, it is the contestant who has to take the initiative to start the court process when it comes to trusts—they can't just show up and object as in the probate of a California Will.

So back to the “which is better” question—is is a Trust better than a Will in warding off attacks by angry beneficiaries? It depends.  If an heir or beneficiary is set on contesting the document and if the heir has means to hire an attorney, then a Trust is just as vulnerable to attack as a Will—the fact that the heir or beneficiary must start the process will usually not prevent an attack. If, however, an heir or beneficiary does not have the means to hire an attorney and does not know how to bring a trust contest to the Court’s attention, then the trust may be better at preventing attack. A California Will, after all, is already filed in court, which allows a beneficiary to object to it much easier, sometimes without the help of a lawyer.

Therefore, a Trust may have some benefit over a California Will in preventing a contest by an angry heir or beneficiary, but the benefit is relatively small if the heir is ready, willing and able to take action to bring the matter to court.

The Complex World of Trust and Will Litigation

Posted by Keith A. Davidson on November 22, 2010

Walking into probate court for the first time can be a daunting experience. And not just for non-lawyers. Many lawyers who have spent their careers practicing in other areas can find the rules and procedures of probate confusing--that's if they find the rules at all. 

I have spent nearly my entire ten-year career in this area so I sometimes forget how difficult it can be to come into a complex area of the law unprepared for what awaits.  But I had a bit of a reminder recently--a wake-up call of sorts.  I went to Bankruptcy Court.  It wasn't my first time there, but it had been a while (five years or so).  Bankruptcy court is a lot like probate court in the sense that both require an understanding of a unique procedure and special rules that do not apply in general civil practice. 
As I sat in bankruptcy court waiting for the judge to take the bench, I heard the other lawyers around me speaking in code sections and terms that were entirely foreign to me.  Luckily I was in bankruptcy court for a minor reason--to set aside the automatic bankruptcy stay for a civil case my firm was handling where the defendant filed for bankruptcy protection.  I managed to obtain the relief I was seeking, but I realized that coming into this court, with its arcane rules and procedures is like going into probate court for the first time and not knowing that area of law.  Simply put, experience matters.
For example, in trust cases we often file multiple pleadings at the same time to protect our client's interests. Such as filing a creditor's claim in an estate, a petition to transfer property (called an “850 petition” in probe lingo) and a petition to contest a trust or will all at the same time in the same case.  These can be confusing filings when compared to a single complaint that is filed in a typical civil lawsuit.  But confusion is checked with experience, and it makes the difference between being protected and being vulnerable.  
I am going to leave Bankruptcy Court to the bankruptcy lawyers--they seem to have things well in control. And I will continue plying my trade in the confusing world of trusts and wills where my experience has taken me. 

Walking into probate court for the first time can be a daunting experience. And not just for non-lawyers. Many lawyers who have spent their careers practicing in other areas can find the rules and procedures of probate confusing--that's if they find the rules at all. 

I have spent nearly my entire ten-year career in this area so I sometimes forget how difficult it can be to come into a complex area of the law unprepared for what awaits.  But I had a bit of a reminder recently--a wake-up call of sorts.  I went to Bankruptcy Court.  It wasn't my first time there, but it had been a while (five years or so).  Bankruptcy court is a lot like probate court in the sense that both require an understanding of a unique procedure and special rules that do not apply in general civil practice. 

As I sat in bankruptcy court waiting for the judge to take the bench, I heard the other lawyers around me speaking in code sections and terms that were entirely foreign to me.  Luckily I was in bankruptcy court for a minor reason--to set aside the automatic bankruptcy stay for a civil case my firm was handling where the defendant filed for bankruptcy protection.  I managed to obtain the relief I was seeking, but I realized that coming into this court, with its arcane rules and procedures is like going into probate court for the first time and not knowing that area of law.  Simply put, experience matters.

For example, in trust cases we often file multiple pleadings at the same time to protect our client's interests. Such as filing a creditor's claim in an estate, a petition to transfer property (called an “850 petition” in probe lingo) and a petition to contest a trust or will all at the same time in the same case.  These can be confusing filings when compared to a single complaint that is filed in a typical civil lawsuit.  But confusion is checked with experience, and it makes the difference between being protected and being vulnerable.  

I am going to leave Bankruptcy Court to the bankruptcy lawyers--they seem to have things well in control. And I will continue plying my trade in the confusing world of trusts and wills where my experience has taken me.