THE FOLLOWING IS A TRANSCRIPT OF THIS VIDEO. FOR MORE INFORMATION, CLICK HERE

Hi, this is Keith Davidson with Albertson & Davidson. In this video, I want to talk about some of the warning signs that you should be aware of to clue you in that undue influence might be taking place with one of your parents.

As lawyers, when we get undue influence cases we typically get them after everything’s been done and we’re looking at the facts in hindsight. But, as a child, there’s times when things happen, and you might be suspicious of what’s happening, but you’re not sure if it’s something bad or not. That’s what I want to talk about. These are the warning signs that really should be on your radar and start raising red flags when you see them.

For example, let’s say you have a parent, and you can tell that they’re kind of slowing down, and you notice that somebody (like a neighbor, a caregiver, or a stranger who you don’t even know), starts spending a lot of time with that parent at their house, and then they start helping the parent write checks or go to medical appointments. That could be a real red flag of somebody who’s trying to cozy into the parent and slowly take control.

Typically, the way undue influence works is: somebody starts off by being just a friend, and then a helper, and then they start taking over everything; check-writing, finances, medications, doctor visits, even communications. That’s another warning sign.

Let’s say that you are finding it difficult to talk to your parent. You try calling them and somebody else answers the phone and won’t let you speak. Or, when you talk to your parent, there’s somebody else who’s always on the other line, listening in. That’s a huge red flag that somebody is probably trying to control the flow of information to the parent. That could be a real problem. So that’s another big warning sign.

One of the elements of undue influence is that somebody controls the necessities of life; food, medication, all those sorts of things. So if you see somebody who you aren’t that familiar with, and they’re doing all the grocery shopping for your parent they’re making meals for the parent they might be doing something that’s really nice and maybe there’s nothing wrong with that, or they might be doing something where they’re controlling the flow of food to the parent which is one way to manipulate somebody who is old and not able to resist undue influence. But, that doesn’t mean that every time you see one of these things that it’s bad, but it definitely should raise your attention and you should look into it.

So those are some of the warning signs that you should be on the lookout for in possible undue influence against one of your loved ones.

 

THE FOLLOWING IS A TRANSCRIPT OF THIS VIDEO. FOR MORE INFORMATION, CLICK HERE

Hi, this is Keith Davidson at Albertson & Davidson.  And in this video, I want to discuss step-parents.  And I don’t mean to disparage step-parents, there’s a lot of very good step-parent and step-child relationships out there.  But, there’s also some bad ones.  And a lot of times we’re asked, “Can my step-mom or step-dad, can they change the estate plan after my parent dies?”  So, typically, in this scenario, maybe you have a father who married somebody new and that’s your step-mom.  And then your father passes away and you always thought you had a good relationship with your step-mom, but after your dad passes, things start to get a little strained and awkward and you start to wonder can she actually change the estate?

In some cases, it might actually get downright hostile and maybe the step-mom actually tells you, “I’m changing the estate and I’m leaving it all to my kids and I’m not going to leave your father’s share to you after all.”  And you wonder, can she do that?  And the answer is maybe.  And that’s a typical lawyer answer, right?  But it depends; it depends on what your father did when he planned out his estate.  Or, if he didn’t have any planning at all, that could be a real problem.

So the best case scenario would be if your father had created a trust prior to his death, he has the right to leave assets to step-mom and that’s fine.  But, typically, what you’d want to see is that he left money to step-mom in a trust.  So she can use that money for her care and support during her lifetime, but she can’t change the ultimate distribution of it.  Whatever’s leftover after step-mom passes, has to go to you.  But that only works if your dad created a trust and if he had a trust created that had those type of terms in it that allowed the step-mom to use the assets but not control them.  That required that the assets go to you after death.

If your father didn’t do that, then you probably are not going to be entitled to his share of the estate.  And so what happens a lot of times is, either your father leaves everything to the step-mom, in which case she can do whatever she wants after your father dies, and she can cut you out.  Or, he just doesn’t plan at all and things just pass to the step-mom because it’s in joint tenancy or she’s the beneficiary on life insurance, or whatever the case may be.

So when these things are not planned out and if the assets actually pass to step-mom after your father passes away, then you’re really in trouble, because the step-mom can do whatever she likes.  She becomes the owner of those assets and she can do whatever she wants with them as the owner.

The fact that your father may have had a family home that you grew up in and lived in and has been in the family for decades, the law doesn’t care about that – if your father didn’t plan it out property.  And so that’s really the big question.

So anytime somebody approaches us and says, “Can step-mom change the estate after my father passes away?”  The first question we’re going to have is, “Well, what did your dad have in place?  Did he have a trust?  Did he have a will?  Did he have something that we can look at to see if you, as a child, have any rights to any of those assets?” And if you were to tell us that no, he didn’t have any of those things, then chances are, you’re out of luck.  And that’s a little something about the downfalls of step-parent and step-children relationships when it comes to passing assets.

 

THE FOLLOWING IN A TRANSCRIPT OF THIS VIDEO. FOR MORE INFORMATION, CLICK HERE

Hi, this is Stewart Albertson with Albertson and Davidson and we get this question every now and then, and the question is: Do I really need to hire a lawyer for my trust contest or will contest or can I do it on my own? Can I go order a book from Nolo press or from Amazon and just figure out how to do this myself? And here’s the answer: No. That could be the end of this article right now, but no, you cannot handle your own trust contest or will contest.

I know that sounds like a self-serving statement because I’m a lawyer and I get paid to bring these cases, but this would be like asking you, can you handle your own gallbladder surgery? Can you handle your own appendectomy? Can you handle your own heart surgery? No, you’re going to have to hire professionals to do that if you want it done right. So get the books from Amazon, get the books from Nolo press so that you can educate yourself on what a trust contest is, a will contest, and how they work so that you can go in and sit down and have a good conversation with a professional lawyer to determine the best course of action moving forward. But if you really want a trust contests or a will contest done properly, you’re going to have to use a professional lawyer who has the experience in the field to handle it properly.

 

THE FOLLOWING IS A TRANSCRIPT OF THIS VIDEO. FOR MORE INFORMATION, CLICK HERE

This is Stewart Albertson with Albertson and Davidson, and I want to talk to you about an issue that we do see from time to time called advances on inheritance. Advances on inheritance are essentially a loan that mom or dad makes to one child. They don’t want to be unfair in giving that loan to one of their children when they have several other children. So they basically tell the person they made the loan to, well that is an advance on your inheritance so that when I die, you’re going to have to take that into account based upon whatever your share of my estate is.

There’s a real problem with advances on inheritance though because the probate code has some technical requirements that must be met to qualify as an advance on inheritance. Otherwise, that payment of money from a parent to a child will be looked at as a gift.  If it’s a gift that makes a big difference because when the estate is distributed after mom and dad have passed away it’ll be distributed equally between all of the children without taking into account the “loan” that was made to one of the children during lifetime.

So how can you tell the difference between an advance on inheritance and a gift? The advance on inheritance can be proven in three primary ways. There’s actually a fourth way, but that gets a little complicated. If you really want to look into this, you can go to Probate Code section 21135, and you can read how you establish an advance on inheritance there.

Generally, the way you prove an advance on inheritance is:

  1. The trust or will terms themselves have in there saying, I’m giving $100,000 loan to my son Johnny, and when I die, this counts as part of his inheritance at the time he receives his ultimate distribution. That’s the first way that an advance on inheritance can be included and be supported by the evidence.
  2. The next way you can establish an advance on inheritance is did your mom or dad have a writing outside the trust or will that simply says: I hereby am making a loan to Johnny and after I die, that should be considered as part of his inheritance for distribution purposes. That would be the second way that you can establish an advance on inheritance.
  3. The third way is you have Johnny acknowledged in a writing that he’s already receiving some of his inheritance by way of a loan prior to mom and dad passing.

If you have any of those three, chances are you can establish an advance on inheritance.

As you can see, this is not always easy to do. If there is money that is given to one child, a lot of money, say several hundreds of thousands of dollars to one child and not to the other, and there’s nothing to establish an advance on inheritance, what is the argument the child makes who received the money during the parents’ lifetime? And that is, it was a gift. If it’s a gift, it won’t be chargeable against their share of the estate. It won’t be an advance on inheritance.

 

THE FOLLOWING IS A TRANSCRIPT OF THIS VIDEO. FOR MORE INFORMATION, CLICK HERE

This is Keith A. Davidson from Albertson and Davidson. In this video, I want to talk to you about the differences between Wills and Trusts. A lot of times people think that Wills and Trusts are the same thing, that they’re the same type of documents, and they really aren’t. Wills and Trusts are very different, and so let’s start with a discussion of Wills, and then we’ll talk about Trusts and you can see the differences between the two documents.

Wills are testamentary documents, and what that means is they only come into effect, they only actually are created, upon somebody’s death. Now you go ahead and create the Will and write it down and sign it prior to death, but it doesn’t operate until after death. For Wills, there’s a lot of what we call formalities that you have to follow.

To have a valid Will, you have to have it in writing. It has to be signed by the person who’s creating the Will, and a typewritten Will has to be witnessed by two witnesses, or it has to be in the testator’s own handwriting. That’s what we call a holographic Will. If you don’t meet those formalities when you create a Will, then the Will simply isn’t going to be valid. That’s something that is unique to Will’s. You’re not going to have that with Trust.

After somebody passes away, a Will cannot operate over their assets until you take that Will to court and you have the court admit the Will to probate. That’s where the court decides whether the Will is valid or not, and until the Will is admitted to probate, nothing can happen with that Will. You can’t administer it. You can’t manage the decedents assets. It has to go through this court process in order to operate and then the Will ultimately will dictate how the assets pass out of probate and to the beneficiaries who are intended to receive them. And that’s generally how a Will works.

A Trust is very different because most people create what we call a living Trust. In legal terms, we would call that an inter-vivos Trust, meaning that it’s created during your lifetime and it actually operates during your lifetime. So the Trustee of your living Trust can manage your assets, can make management decisions over those assets, and it operates even if you lose capacity. That’s different from a Will because the Will never helps you if you lose capacity, but a Trust does. And then after you passed the Trustee can administer that Trust without having to go to court.

Trust don’t require any court oversight in order to be administered. And in order to create a Trust, all you have to do is have something in writing and signed. You don’t technically even need to have it notarized, although most Trusts are notarized and they probably should be, but that’s not a legal requirement that they be notarized.

Trusts tend to be a lot more flexible because you can leave your assets to your children or your beneficiaries, and you can have all sorts of flexibility in how you leave your assets to them. So, you can leave something in a child’s Trust that holds their assets until a certain age, or you can leave something to your grandchild and also hold that until they reach a certain age. There’s all sorts of flexibility that you can build into your Trust that is much harder to do under a Will because the Will has to go to court and through the probate process in order to be administered.

So that is some differences between a Will and a Trust, and I think you’ll see that they’re very different documents.

If you find your inheritance being reduced or eliminated and you want to take action to protect yourself in court, you may want to first consider California No Contest clauses.  California Trusts and Wills often contain a no contest clause that states you will be disinherited if you challenge the terms of the Trust or Will.  And while California no contest clauses have been severely limited in recent years under California law, they still can apply to certain actions you take to challenge a Trust or Will.

In this course, we discuss the application of California no contest clauses in more detail and offer our views on how best to deal with this difficult issue.  If you would prefer to read about this topic, you can find our written blog post here.

The Facts

In this video we cover the basic ground rules for California no contest clauses and provide the factual scenario we will use for the next two video lessons.

The Law

Partner Stewart Albertson provides his professional opinion on how to deal with California no contest clauses found in California Trusts and Wills.

The Talk

Partners Stewart Albertson and Keith A. Davidson discuss their views of how to deal with California no contest clauses.

Finding the right key for your case

How do you select a lawyer to represent you in a Trust or Will litigation matter? It can be a frustrating process.

What we suggest to people is to be comfortable with the person you are meeting with before hiring a lawyer. Lawyers have a fairly bad reputation, but that reputation does not apply to all lawyers. You need to meet with several lawyers and make sure you are comfortable with the lawyer you select.

A few questions we recommend asking include: does the lawyer sound like they know what they are talking about? Do they have an interest in your case? If they are interested in your case, what are they interested in? Is it an interesting fact situation, legal situation, or something they feel compelled to address?

After asking a few questions, sit and see what your comfort level is with the person. If you are comfortable with the person and they sound like they know what they are talking about—and are interested in the case—then you probably found the right lawyer for you.

The most important thing is the relationship between the attorney and the client. There will always be ups and downs in every litigation case ad you need to be able to work together and trust each other in good times and in bad. If you feel comfortable in all this, then generally you have found the right attorney for you.

Ya Wanna Fight???

Occasionally we are asked about fighting against a big firm. Maybe your Trustee decides to hire a big firm in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Boston, or some other big city. How are you going to fight your Trustee when he or she is represented by a big law firm? That’s a fair question.

Many people think that large law firms have unlimited resources and can crush a small firm in litigation. But in Trust and Will litigation that tends to be false. First, large law firms tend to be far more expensive—meaning their client will feel the financial pressure of litigation before you do.

Second, large firms have a hard time doing anything “outside of the box” because of the many partners to which each lawyer must answer. That means if anyone does anything novel they may be questioned or challenged for it later by the higher-ups. As a result, most big firms engage in a traditional style of litigation, which is fairly predictable.

Third, the California Code of Civil Procedure applies to everyone in California—big firms and small firms alike. Yes, it takes work to enforce the rules, but after having done it many times against big firms, we can easily attest that the rules are applied against big firms just as well as small firms.

A specialist, boutique firm is smaller, more nimble, and can react appropriately and more strategically than most large law firms in Trust and Will litigation. As a result, a specialty firm can develop and employ a unique strategy that better fits your case.

The strength-2

I have seen many lawyers argue themselves OUT of a win by talking too much in court. The first rule of oral argument in court is that if you do not need to say anything because the judge is agreeing with you, then SHUT UP. You do yourself no service by re-hashing a point the court already accepts, and you run the risk of changing the court’s mind against you.

In those cases where the court is not going your way, then you do need to speak up. And here is the best advice I can give anyone speaking with a judge in court: listen to the judge and answer his or her question. Sounds simple enough, but again it is rarely practiced.

So often people come to court prepared to argue what they think the issue is, or what they fear the weak point is. But the court often sees the issue a little differently. You have to understand your legal arguments and be prepared to speak, but arguing a point the judge is not asking about is a waste of time and effort. More importantly, you can frustrate the judge and lose the argument altogether.

The best oral arguments I have had in court come from entering into a conversation with the court. The judge raises an issue or question, I listen to what he or she is asking about, and I formulate my response to address that concern.   You must always remember that you are engaging in a conversation with the court. Coming into court with a pre-packaged argument and then not varying from your script is a sure recipe for disaster.

And when the court agrees with you and starts peppering the opposing party with questions, shut up.  At times, your best argument can be silence.

simplicity

How do you write a winning brief? Say what you are going to say, say it, and then say what you said. That is an old rule in writing and it applies to well written legal briefs also. The biggest problem with most written legal arguments is the length. As Winston Churchill once said of a very lengthy report “This document by its very length defends itself against the risk of being read.”

Judges are busy people. The court staff who review most of the pleadings before the judge reads it are also busy people. They have to sort through thousands of pleadings on a daily basis and try to make sense of it all. Yet so many people (lawyers included) think that the judge has a full Sunday afternoon dedicated to siting down with a nice cup of tea and fully reading and enjoying your written pleading. No, no, no. At most a judge may have fifteen minutes to review your work and determine what points you are making.

That means written legal arguments must be presented in a very different manner than any other writing. First, you have to tell the judge what you want him or her to do. What action should the court take? Just say it upfront. For example “the Court should grant this motion because ….” The word “because” is very important because (see what I did there) it forces you to put a point on your thought. If I say “the court should grant this motion” and stop there then the judge does not know why that should be done. Tell the judge why as soon as possible. Do it in your first sentence.

Next, you have to tell the judge what legal authority you have to support the request. Judges like to follow the law (its kinda their thing), so give them the law. It should be short and to the point. Not so short that it makes no sense, but also not any longer than required to convey the point.

Finally, conclude and get out. Your job in any written legal argument is to say what you need to say as quickly and clearly as possible and then STOP. There is no reason to restate the points again, and again, and again. Some lawyers just cannot help themselves from writing too much. There is also a fear that the point may not be made. But in reality it is often the smallest light that cuts through the fog. Simple, concise language covering less than a page conveys a better and more powerful message than ten pages of legal prose.