California's 2nd District Court of Appeal not only rejected Donald Sterling's $2 billion sale of the Clippers to Microsoft's Steve Ballmer, the Court all but reprimanded him for the appeal's "numerous deficiencies."
Recently in Trusts & Estates Law Category
Finally, that LLM you got in Zombie Law is about to pay off! The California Supreme Court ruled on Monday that wills may be amended post-mortem. That's a drastic shift from the categorical bar against modifying an unambiguous will.
Of course, those wishing to amend their wills after death won't need to reanimate a corpse or two -- though it wouldn't hurt. Clear extrinsic evidence of the testator's intent should be enough.
The fight over deceased artist Thomas Kinkade’s multi-million dollar estate will soon make its way up to the California Court of Appeals.
On July 24, attorneys for Thomas Kinkade’s estate filed an appeal with California’s Sixth District Court of Appeal, reports Patch.
California’s Fourth Appellate District recognized the tort of intentional interference with an expected inheritance (IIEI) last week, joining the majority of other states in recognizing the tort of IIEI as a valid cause of action.
In addition to expanding California’s tort causes of action to include IIEI, the court outlined the components of an IIEI claim.
The California Supreme Court is set to decide whether deeds speak louder than words when it comes to testator intent.
This week, the state’s highest court voted to review an intestacy ruling to decide whether a decedent’s clear intent in his holographic will should overcome shortcomings in the language of the document.
The problem with maintaining a harem of female companions over the course of 30 years is that, eventually, you may grow attached to one of your companions.
Anyone who's seen Pretty Woman knows that one minute you're making a business arrangement, and the next, you're overcoming a fear of heights to climb a fire escape and proclaim your undying love.
These things happen.
Jacques Gaston Murray, a wealthy, 91-year-old business man, married three times. After his last divorce, he swore to never become emotionally involved in a relationship again. Murray is our Richard Gere/Edward Lewis character in this case.
The California Court of Appeals presided over a unique probate case earlier this year. Ever heard of a rogue will? No, it’s not Sarah Palin’s will.
Rouge is certainly an apropos term especially in this case, because here, the will was quite inaccurate and the personalities involved were pretty preposterous.
A rogue will is that random, unknown little will that sneaks up on the presumptive heirs and catches them off guard. In many instances such will could be simple holographic wills. The case before the California Court of Appeals was known as Estate of Stoker and it’s the first California Appellate case to apply the “harmless error rule” that was passed by the State of California in 2008, writes the Wall Street Journal.
Beware, California lawyers! Malpractice lawsuits just became a bit easier.
In April, the California appellate court case of Callahan v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher found against Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in a result that should raise red flags for all California attorneys, particularly those who draft documents for client consumption. According to Thomson Reuters News & Insight, the 2nd District California Court of Appeal held that the law firm's clients had a malpractice claim against the firm, based on a faulty family limited partnership-- over a decade after the documents had been drafted.
The key issue at appeal was the statute of limitations on such a claim. The statute of limitations on the malpractice suit, states the court in its opinion, began to run after injury was sustained as opposed to when the allegedly faulty documents were drafted. The injury occurred in 2004, nearly sixteen years after the documents had been drafted.
Conservatorship of the Estate of McQueen, A126825, concerned a conservator's suit on behalf of a mentally and physically disabled elder, against several of the elder's family members and the family's legal representative, claiming that the defendants violated the terms of a trust set up for the elder by her father when they sold the family residence, in which the elder held a life estate, without her consent or knowledge and then misappropriated the entirety of the sales proceeds for their own use.