The Following is a Transcript of this Video. For More Information, CLICK HERE

Hi, this is Stewart Alberton with Albertson & Davidson and we’ve been discussing contingency fee agreements and the benefits, the advantages and disadvantages to entering into a contingency fee agreement.  And I want to talk to you about one more benefit on the contingency fee agreement is the costs that your attorney agrees to pay while the case is going forward.

Now, most costs are not significant.  They’re real money, but they’re not significant, such as the filing fees, fees to get a court reporter to do a deposition, subpoena fees.  We’re talking ten, twenty, thirty thousand dollars in the life of a case.  Maybe more, if it’s a bigger case, but it’s not going to be too much more than that.

But there is one set of costs that go really high, really fast in a trust and will case where lack of capacity or undue influence is an essential issue.  And that has to do with hiring an expert.  An expert in this case would be either a neurologist or a psychiatrist.  Somebody that specializes in forensically going back and looking at medical records to determine if a decedent was, either they did lack capacity or where they subject to the exercise of undue influence.

These experts are very good people and so we’re not upset at them for how much they have to bill us, but we do want to point out that it is quite expensive to hire them.  In many cases, it will be ten to fifteen thousand dollars just to hire them, and then, because they have so much education and experience, and it’s such a specialized area, they charge generally anywhere between four hundred and a thousand dollars an hour.  And that time is spent reviewing medical records, coming to determine opinions.  If a decedent did in fact lack capacity at the time a trust or will was created, or if the decedent was subject to the exercise of undue influence.

Sometimes you have to have more than one of these experts in a case.  So let’s say that you hire a lawyer on a contingency fee agreement.  Any trust and will contest where you have to hire one of these experts, and that expert bills out at say $40,000 for the life of the case.  If you lose that case at the time of trial, which is a bad result for everyone and nobody hopes we lose, but if you do lose that case at the time of trial, the lawyer is the one that is stuck with the $40,000 bill.  Not you, the client.  So that’s just one more benefit of contingency fee agreements.

The Following is a Transcript of this Video. For More Information, Click Here

Hi, this is Stewart Albertson with Albertson & Davidson and I want to talk to you about an issue that we are seeing more and more of and that has to do with statute of limitation.  Statute of limitation being the time period that you’re allowed to bring a lawsuit, whether it’s in probate court or civil court.

What we’re seeing and this video may be more to the practicing attorneys out there, but it’s also something the beneficiaries will want to be aware of.  We’re seeing people miss these statute of limitations in trust and will cases and we believe the reason for that is is because it’s a complex analysis to determine what particular statute of limitation applies at what particular time at what particular proceeding in a trust and will contest matter.

Let me give you an example from another area of law to show you why we’re having issues with the trust and estates statutes and we’re seeing those come up more often where people are making mistakes.

Let’s talk about personal injury.  Personal injury is very simple.  If somebody crashes into you in a car.  If somebody punches you in the face, you have two years to bring a lawsuit against that person before the statute of limitation runs.  In other words, you can do anything you want for up to two years, as long as you file your lawsuit before the end of two years.  You can bring a personal injury action against the person who hurt you.

Well, let’s come back to trust and estate law now.  It’s not that simple.  There’s various statute of limits that apply at times.  Let’s talk about the bright line statute of limitations pertaining to decedents.  The general rule is that when someone dies, and everyone should know when someone dies, that’s pretty easy to ascertain.  You have one year to make a claim against that person.  But that year can be shortened to as little as 120 days, depending on the circumstances.

If a petition for probate goes out and you have a will that’s admitted into probate.  Once that’s admitted into probate, now you have 120 days to file a claim against the decedent.  To make matters worse, if you’re doing a certain type of claim against the decedent, you’re going to have what we call a creditor’s claim in the probate estate of the decedent and you’re going to have to file a lawsuit all before the end of the claim period running.

In other types of cases, you only have to file the creditor’s claim but you can file the lawsuit after a year.  And so this becomes confusing to many lawyers as it may be to you now as I’m trying to explain it.

There’s also another complication where you have financial elder abuse claims.  This is where someone has a done a wrongful taking against somebody that’s a dependent adult or somebody that’s older than 65 years of age in California. We don’t want people abusing our elders.  We don’t want them taking their finances in a wrongful taking.  So the statute allows us to sue somebody, the wrongdoer in that case, for up to four years after the wrongful taking.  So we literally can have four years going by, and as long as we get the financial elder abuse case on file before the four years runs, chances are, we beat that statute of limitations.  However, if you were given statutory notice under a trust, which gives you 120 days within which to file a trust contest, and you do not file that trust contest within 120 days, you may be precluded from filing a financial elder abuse claim even though it gives you four years.

One more thing to add and that would be what if the drafting attorney, the attorney that drafts the trust or will, what if they have made a mistake and they hurt you as an intended beneficiary of that estate plan.  In that case, you have one year from date of notice that you knew you were harmed by the attorney’s drafting, to file a legal malpractice case against that attorney.  If you don’t have notice and you discover it later, more than one year after the event took place, you may be able to argue you didn’t have actual knowledge or that you shouldn’t have known about the harm that took place, and you may be able to use a four year statute of limitations to sue the attorney for legal malpractice.

The whole point of this video is not for you to understand all of these varied statute of limitations, some as short as 120 days, some as a long as a year, some as long as four years, is to show you that there’s complexity in each one of these trust and estate cases, you need to have expert analysis of your case so that somebody can see what the facts and circumstances are and what statute of limitations are going to apply to your case moving forward.

If you miss a statute, chances are you’re going to be barred forever from bringing your claim forward.  So even those these are complex, difficult to understand, it’s something at the very beginning of a case you have to spend the time to understand, make sure you’re not missing anything, especially on the shorter ones such as the 120 days, because that one comes and goes very quickly.

Hopefully I haven’t confused you too much.  I’ve confused myself a little bit in going over all this.  All I want to point out is, this is a complex areas, these statute of limitations in trust and estate matters, make sure you get somebody that’s qualified to explain them to you and you understand the time limits you have to bring your claim forward in either probate court or civil court.

The Following is a Transcript of this Video. For More Information, Click Here

Hi, this is Keith Davidson from Albertson & Davidson.  In this video, I’m talking about can you release your trustee from liability and, in particular, can a trustee force you to sign a release in order to get your trust distribution?  And you see this happen fairly often or more often than it really should.  Which is a trustee will say, “I have your money.  I’m ready to distribute it out to you, but I won’t give you a dime until you first sign this release relieving me, the trustee, of all liability under California Probate law and Trust law.”  And the answer is no.  A trustee cannot force you to sign a release as a condition to getting a distribution of your trust share.

Now, that doesn’t mean that a trustee can’t still ask you to sign a release.  You voluntarily can choose to sign a release if you’d like to.  And there are some reasons why you might want to do that.  Because if you don’t sign a release, the trustee might choose, instead, to seek court approval of a trust accounting.  And the reason why a trustee would want to do that, is if they disclose all of their activities in a trust accounting and they file it with the court, and the court approves that accounting, then all of those acts cannot be sued on later.  So, once the trust accounting is approved, the beneficiaries can’t come back later and sue the trustee for those acts.  And for that reason, the trustee may say, “Well, I either need you to sign this release voluntarily, or I’m going to have to file an accounting with the court.  And I’m allowed to use trust funds to pay for that preparation of that accounting.”

So you’re in the unusual position where the trustee cannot withhold your money, pending you signing a release.  But the trustee can spend some of your money to get a trust accounting prepared and filed with the court and seek court approval of that accounting.

That doesn’t mean that the trustee can withhold all of your money, however, because even preparation of a trust accounting, it only costs so much.  So it might cost five, ten, fifteen thousand dollars to hire an accountant to do a trust accounting.  You might have to pay a lawyer similar amounts, but it’s not going to be your entire trust share, in most cases.  So if you’re entitled to a million dollars, the trustee can’t withhold a million dollars because they want to get court approval of an accounting.  They have to give you a distribution.  They can hold a reserve, let’s say a hundred thousand dollars out of your million, but they can’t keep the whole million dollars hostage until the court approves their accounting or until you sign a release. And, unfortunately, this happens quite often.  Trustees will threaten that they will withhold your money unless you sign a release, and unfortunately, a lot of times people feel compelled to sign those documents.

And our advice would be don’t sign the documents.  Get some advice before you take any action.  And hopefully, the trustee will do the right thing, will follow California Trust law, and will give you your trust distribution.

The Following is a Transcript of this Video. For More Information, Click Here

Hi, this is Stewart Albertson with Albertson & Davidson and I want to talk to you about how we find assets in a trust or will contest case.  And this is a problem.  This is something that we have a hard time explaining to clients, at times, because the clients come to us and they say I know Mom and Dad had gold bars, silver bars, cash in a safe.  I know that there’s some personal property items that are out there that Mom had and my brother’s taken them and sold them to a pawn shop.  How do we prove that?  How do we get the assets back?

And there’s some good news and bad news here.  But, the good news is, if an asset has a title to it, such as a bank account, that has a title.  A car has a title.  A house generally has a title.  Retirement accounts have titles.  These are generally larger assets in a person’s estate.  We can generally find those assets out there by serving subpoenas on parties that have those documents so that we can look at them and determine what the value of those assets were on the date of death, maybe even prior to the date of death, and then, of course, what they’re worth today.  And we can ask whoever was in control of those assets after someone passed away, what have they done with those assets?  Have they spent them on themselves?  Or have they saved them for the rightful beneficiaries of the trust or the will?

So that is one way that we find assets in these cases.  Sometimes I feel like clients look at us and say, you’re the lawyer, you’re the expert.  Can’t you just go out there and find these assets?  Aren’t these assets just available for you as a specialist in this arena, to go and find.  And what I tell clients is, I wish that were the case.  I wish I had a magic wand that I could waive and I could find all of the assets that had disappeared or gone missing that once belonged to your Mom or your Dad prior to their passing.

There’s going to be some assets that you’re just not going to be able to find in these cases.  Rarely will you find someone whose stolen assets.  Rarely will you have them come to a deposition and they admit that they’ve stole assets.  Even if they get to the point where they say yes, there were some cash in a safe of $200,000.  They’re going to tell you that Mom or Dad gifted that cash to them.  And then that will be the new argument, whether it was a gift, whether it was a loan, whether they took it without permission.  That will be an issue to decide at the time of trial.  But, in most cases, if $200,000 cash is missing, changes are finding it are not going to be great in these cases.  I wish that was not the state of affairs for trust and will cases in California, but, ultimately, if we have titled assets, we can find them.  If we have untitled assets, it can be a problem and the sooner people understand that, come to grips with that, it’s much easier for us to move forward in the case.

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

Hi, this is Keith Davidson from Albertson & Davidson.  In this video, we’re talking about trust accountings.  And we just finished a video where we talked about when you are entitled to a trust accounting and it depends on the type of beneficiary you are.  But there’s two instances where you may not be entitled to a trust accounting, no matter what type of beneficiary you are.  And the first instance is if the trust waives an accounting.

This is where you have to read through your trust document to find out if the trust document waives the trustee’s obligation to account.  Normally a trustee has an obligation to account during certain periods, like once a year, or any time there’s a change of trustee.  But if the trust document waives that accounting right or obligation, then you’re not going to be entitled to an accounting.

You can still get one, however.  If you go to court and you can show that there’s a high degree of likelihood that the trustee has breached their duties of trust, then the court can still order an accounting, even though the trust document waives it.  But the trustee doesn’t have to automatically give you an accounting.  So look at your trust document and see if it waives an accounting.

The other instance is if you, as a beneficiary, waived the right to an accounting.  You may voluntarily sign a document waiving your right to an accounting and, in that instance, the trustee does not have to account to you any longer.  You can revoke that waiver and you can do the revocation of the waiver of accounting at any time.  However, once you revoke a waiver of accounting, the trustee only has to account for actions after you did the revocation of the waiver.  They don’t have to go all the way back.

But you’re still entitled to information.  So even if you can’t get an accounting, at a minimum, you should be asking for information about your trust.  You should see the bank statements, the brokerage account statements.  If real property is sold, you should see the closing statement.  You have a right to be reasonably informed about the business of your trust and you should ask for that information in writing.  You don’t have to do anything fancy.  Just send off a letter, an email, or a fax, asking the trustee to give you the documents so you can double check that everything is running smoothly.

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

Hi, this is Stewart Albertson with Albertson & Davidson. I want to talk to you about the upside and the downside of contingency fee agreements.  We’ve got several videos that we put out on contingency fee agreements because we want people to better understand how they can use them in a trust or will contest case in California.

The biggest upside to a contingency fee agreement is you don’t have to pay any cash to a lawyer to take your case – as long as that lawyer will take it on a contingency fee basis.

The downside is that you have to pay a high percentage, generally 40% in the state of California, to that attorney to take the case on.  That’s a negotiable – the contingency fees are negotiable in California and so you can ask your lawyer if they would take less than that, if they would maybe do a stair-step agreement on a contingency fee agreement.  There’s all kinds of hybrids out there.  But, generally speaking, you’re going to pay more on a contingency fee agreement, and that is a bit of a downside.

On the other hand, if nobody would take your case, because you don’t have money to pay them for an hourly fee, then the contingency fee is probably worth it at the end of the day, because there is a recovery and there is money that comes back to you.

Another upside of the contingency fee agreement is a trust contest with difficult facts, facts that may not win the case.  In that case, if an attorney’s willing to take on that risk, that it’s not the best case in the world.  Let’s say the attorney works that case for two years and loses that case at the time of trial.  This is where the biggest upside to the contingency fee agreement comes in – and that is, you owe that lawyer zero dollars for that lawyer’s two years of work in the case.  You probably also owe that lawyer zero for the costs of the case.  That’s the point of taking a contingency fee agreement.  The lawyer takes on the costs and if they’re not successfully will have to eat those costs and you owe the lawyer nothing if the case loses.

Of course, if the case wins, then you would owe the percentage that you agreed to pay the lawyer on any recovery to you.

The other issue that I personally like in a contingency fee agreement is that I get to run the case the way that I like to run the case.  That is, if I need to do subpoenas to ten different banking institutions, financial institutions. If I need to get four or five medical providers, get subpoenas out to four or five medical providers.  If I need to get subpoenas out to several drafting attorneys, I don’t have to worry about the cost so much as I would on an hourly case.  In an hourly fee arrangement, I would be calling the client and the client would have to consider if the costs were worth it in pursuing the ends of what we’re trying to do in getting documents, for example.

I like contingency fee agreements because it allows me, the lawyer, to spend the money how I see fit, how I think will improve the case, and not have to worry that the client’s going to become shy about how much we’re spending in costs on the case as we move the case forward.

Overall, contingency fee agreements have their place.  They’re not right for everybody.  Sometimes, if you have money to pay on an hourly basis, you’re going to be better off doing that.  But, for those individuals who don’t have the ability to pay hourly, contingency fee agreements are a nice tool available for you to enter into an agreement with a lawyer so that lawyer can fully and effectively represent you in an trust or will contest.

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

Hi, this is Stewart Albertson with Albertson & Davidson. In this video, I want to talk about how we can support the claim, and meet our burden of proof, to show that undue influence took place.

Some of the markers that we look for are the actions by the person that we believe exerted or exercised undue influence over a decedent.  We want to look at this person’s place of business in the decedent’s life when the decedent was still living.  Did this person have control over the decedent’s access to food?  Did they have control over access to medications?  Did they have control over access to going to medical appointments to see physicians?  Did they have control over the financial information of the decedent?

We see these markers and we look at this person and we say, “did they take their place within the decedent’s life, where the decedent relies on them for many things:  their medications, transportation, food?  Did they take that and did they exercise undue pressure over the decedent to get the decedent to create a trust or a will that benefits them, at the expense of other people?”

The more we see these markers, the more that we see the undue pressure, such as a wrongdoer calling up a lawyer that the decedent has never met to make an appointment to create a new trust or a new amendment or a new will or a codicil to that will, to that person driving the decedent to the lawyer, to meeting in the lawyer’s office with the lawyer and the decedent to create the trust, to have multiple emails and texts with the drafting attorney to make sure that the trust or will is drafted according to the decedent’s wishes, those are all things that we see time and time again in these undue influence cases.

One thing that really helps us, in addition to everything I’ve just pointed out is the medical records. Do the medical records show that the decedent suffered from some type of mental incapacity, such as dementia or Alzheimer’s?  It doesn’t have to be dementia or Alzheimer’s, but that’s one we commonly see.  If the decedent is suffering from any mental incapacity issues, and you have all of those other things we’ve talked about, those elements we’ve looked at, where this person is in a position of power, that generally leads us to believe that that person exercised undue influence over this individual. If they’re receiving a lion share of the estate plan, or they are receiving more than they would have, absent the undue influence.

Those are some of the things we look at to determine if we can show undue influence took place during the lifetime of decedent, often shortly before the decedent passed away.

 

 

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

Hi, this is Keith Davidson at Albertson & Davidson.  In this video, I want to discuss whether the successor trustee of a trust has an obligation to declare the trust settlor incompetent.

Let me explain some of those terms before we get started. The settlor is the person who creates the trust. Typically, when people create these revocable living trusts, they’re the settlor, the creator, and the are also the trustee during their lifetime, so they manage those trust assets.  Somebody is usually named the successor trustee for when the original trustee either loses capacity or dies.

The question is: if you are named as a successor trustee, and you’re seeing the trust settlor is fading and losing capacity, is there an obligation to step in and take action?  This usually happens within families. For example: your father creates a trust, he’s the trustee, and you’re one of three children and named as the successor trustee. You can see that Dad is fading, and starting to lose capacity, and that he is having a hard time managing the finances.  Do you, as a successor trustee, have an obligation to step in and take action?

The interesting thing is that from a legal perspective, you don’t have any legal obligation to step in. A successor trustee doesn’t have any duties, responsibilities, or obligations until they agree to act as trustee.

But, then there’s the moral obligation.  You know that if the trustee can’t manage finances, he going to cause harm to himself because his finances won’t be properly managed, and he’s also going to cause harm to the other trust beneficiaries receiving these assets after he passes away.  And from that perspective, maybe you do have a moral obligation to step in.

The good news: that most trusts usually have a section that tells you what you need to do to have the settlor deemed incompetent. Once you do those things, the settlor is no longer trustee and the successor can step in and start acting.

Many trust documents say you need a letter or declaration from at least one or two treating physicians.  And that’s all you need.  Once you have that letter from the doctor deeming the settlor incompetent, the successor trustee can step into place.  It’s just that simple.  You don’t have to go to court to get an incapacity declaration or a conservatorship. Just follow the steps in the trust.

If your trust doesn’t have instructions on how to have the trustee declared incapacitated, then you do have to go to court.  This is harder and can be a problem.  However, I estimate 90% of trusts have instructions on how to handle the settlor’s incapacity.

So, take a look at your trust. See what it says, and follow those steps. Then, the successor trustee can step in, control and properly manage the assets, and make sure that the trust is stable moving forward.

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

Hi, this is Stewart Albertson with Albertson & Davidson and I want to talk to you just briefly about three important sets of documents that we need to get quickly in any type of trust or will contest.  So this happens when a client has already shown up and hired a lawyer.  They’ve already filed their trust contest or their will contest and now the question is what documents do we need to begin the case?  To begin our discovery, to begin strategizing how we’re going to overturn the trust or the will that is a product of undue influence or lack of capacity.

And these come down to three subpoenas and they should go out quickly.  You want to get these documents quickly, to make sure you get the full set of documents, and then you want to have the right people review them once you have them so they can help shape your case going forward, help shape your discovery and, hopefully, shape a successful outcome in invalidating a trust or a will that is the product of undue influence or lack of capacity.

The first set of documents that we want to subpoena right away are from the estate planning attorney.  So the estate planning attorney who drafted the trust or the will or both, we want to get a letter to them immediately telling them to safeguard their file and they can be accept – expecting a subpoena.  Once they receive that subpoena, they have a short time to respond and most estate planning attorneys will send us their files so that we can review them to see what were the circumstances around the creation of the trust or the will.

Sometimes, these attorneys though, they decide they don’t want to send the file and that’s not a problem.  Because then we can file a motion to compel, is what we call it, file that in court and we’ll get a judge to order them to give us the documents.  In many cases, once we file this motion to compel, the estate planning attorney will agree and send over the files.  So that’s the first set of documents you must get in a trust and will contest – and the sooner, the better!

The second set of documents will be the medical records and these are rich – especially if the decedent had multiple providers.  So you want to subpoena out to every single medical provider that you are aware of.  Once you have the first set of medical records, there’ll be other doctors, other hospitals, other medical providers that you’ll in those medical records.  In many cases, neurologists and those are really good medical records to get – so you’ll want to send out subsequent subpoenas for those documents as well.  Most big medical providers are very good at responding to subpoenas and in short order, if you give them a subpoena that’s well drafted and it details exactly what you’re looking for, you will have medical records that you can review to look for things such as dementia, Alzheimer’s and other mental/cognitive deficits that may have impacted the decedent at the time that the will or trust was created that you’re alleging was the product of undue influence of lack of capacity.

Finally, the last set of records are the financial records, and they’re also rich.  Especially if there’s a wrongdoer who did exercise undue influence over your mom or dad before they passed away.  This person generally can’t wait to get their hands on the money until the person dies, so they get their hands on the money during lifetime and they start taking a lot of cash withdrawals from the ATM, they’ll write checks to themselves calling them cash.  They may even sign them for the decedent, your mom or your father, and take this money and start spending it, using it for whatever it is they want to use it for.

So once you file the trust or will contest, you want to jump quickly on these three sets of documents.  Once you have them, they’re going to go a long way in getting you to a good settlement, or you’re going to be able to prove at the time of trial that, in fact, undue influence or lack of capacity did take  place in the creation of the will and the trust.

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

Hi, this is Stewart Albertson with Albertson & Davidson and I want to talk to you about undue influence cases.  What makes a good undue influence case and what makes a not-so-good undue influence case?  And let me just set this out as we meet with lots of people that come into our office saying, “Hey, I want to contest my mom or dad’s trust or their will because I know that my brother Bob exercised undue influence over my parents and I’ve been written out of the will or the trust and I will receive no inheritance and I’ve got the best evidence you’ve ever seen Mr. Albertson, or Mr. Davidson, and we’re going to come in here and we’re just, this is going to be a slam-dunk.  You’re going to have no problem winning this case!”

The type of evidence you need to have a good undue influence case, it’s a high bar.  The burden of proof that’s required for you is high.  It’s not easy to invalidate a trust or a will.  So that begs the question, “OK, well then what makes a good undue influence cases versus a not-so-good undue influence case?”

Well, let’s talk about some of the elements that you need to meet to prove that undue influence did, in fact, take place.  One of the first things we have to show is we have to show that the decedent, your parent in this case, was a vulnerable individual.  We can show that several ways.  The most easy way to show that is that they’re over the age of 65 or they’re a dependent adult.  So if they’re over 65, chances are, you could show that they have some vulnerable to them.  The State of California has addressed financial elder abuse and said, “Look, we see a lot of financial elder abuse happening in our state, so we want to stop that.  And so what we’ve done is we’ve set out some criteria for people to look at.  This, these are the elements that we look to to prove an undue influence claim.”

The other way you can look to see if a person is vulnerable is what if they have some type of a medical issue?  What if they have some diagnosis for dementia or Alzheimer’s or anything of the like that affects their mental cognition?  That is something that also will support the element of the decedent being vulnerable.

We also want to look to other elements.  What about the actions or the tactics of the wrongdoer?  The wrongdoer is the person that exercised undue influence over the decedent.  And a lot of times this is not something that you see that’s nefarious or evil or somebody yelling or screaming at the decedent, it’s actually done in a very nice manner.  And it happens like this:  The wrongdoer comes to the decedent while they’re still living and says, “How come your son, Johnny, doesn’t come visit you anymore?  Oh, you know, I don’t think Johnny cares about you.  It’s too bad that Johnny’s not here to take care of you like I’m taking care of you.”  And it’s just done over time.  And, of course, this person already – the decedent already is vulnerable, because they’re older, over 65 or older, they may have a health issue, and so now you have this person who is doing deceitful actions and tactics to influence the elder that their son Johnny really doesn’t care about them and we see this element time and again in a good undue influence case.

We also want to look to another element and that is what type of authority did the wrongdoer have over the decedent?  And authority can come in many forms.  Authority can be that this is the person’s agent, under their durable power of attorney, or maybe they’re already the trustee of the trust.  They can also be somebody that the decedent relies on for their necessaries of live, such as daily medication.  Somebody to drive them to doctor’s offices.  Somebody to help change their diaper in bed.  Somebody that makes sure that hospice is taking care of them.  Here we see the decedent, the elder, is being very reliable on this person who has this apparent authority over them.

The last element that you want to flush out in a good undue influence case is there is an inequitable result.  This is most easily shown in cases where the decedent had a preexisting estate plan that gave everything equally to all of their children.  And we see this time and again.  And then just before they die, they make a change to that trust that did give everything equally to all their children, and they give everything to one person, either one of their children or the wrongdoer who has come into their life and has now exercised undue influence over them.

So in order to have a good undue influence case, where you can meet the burden of proof which is a high bar in the State of California, you’re going to have to show that the victim was vulnerable, that the wrongdoer used actions or tactics that were deceitful, that the wrongdoer had apparent authority over the decedent, and the results that the wrongdoer got was inequitable.  If you can pull all of those elements together through a totality of the circumstances and showing the evidence, you probably have a good undue influence case.