Firm partner and litigator, Yasha Bronshteyn presented a lecture at the South Bay Bar Association on May 9, 2019. The topic at the Probate Section Luncheon was “Post-Death Trust and Will Contests.”
A major point of discussion was the case known as Barefoot v. Jennings, 2018 WL 4292450. This case was widely criticized by Probate and Trust litigators when announced in the fall of 2018. Attempts to have Barefoot republished were not successful and instead the California Supreme Court will review the case.
In summary the case concerns Appellant, Joan Mauri Barefoot, who is one of six children of Joan Lee Maynord. Maynord and her former husband, who died in 1993, established the Maynord 1986 Family Trust and Maynord served as the sole trustor following her husband’s death. Starting in August 2013 and continuing through 2016, Maynord executed eight amendments to and restatements of the Family Trust, referred to as the 17th through the 24th Amendments, with the 24th Amendment being the final amendment prior to Maynord’s death. It is in these amendments and restatements in which Appellant’s share of the Family Trust, described in the 16th Amendment, was eliminated and Appellant was both expressly disinherited and removed as successor trustee.
Appellant’s petition challenged the validity of the 17th through the 24th Amendments on three grounds: (1) alleged that Maynord was “not of sound and disposing mind” and thus lacked “mental capacity to amend the Trust”; (2) alleged undue influence on behalf of Respondents, the other children of Maynord, including Shana Wren, the current trustee; and (3) alleged fraud on behalf of Respondents.
With respect to her standing to file the petition, Appellant alleged she was “a person interested in both the devolution of [Maynord’s] estate and the proper administration of the Trust because [appellant] is [Maynord’s] daughter and both the trustee and beneficiary of the Trust before the purported amendments.” She also claimed that she would benefit from a judicial determination that the purported amendments are invalid.
Respondents filed an answer and a motion to dismiss pursuant to Probate Code Section 17200 and 17202, arguing that Appellant lacked standing because she was neither a beneficiary nor a trustee of the Trust as constituted under the 24th Amendment. Appellant opposed the motion, arguing that she was a beneficiary under the 16th Amendment and alleging that the later amendments were invalid. The Trial Court ultimately sided with respondents and dismissed the Appellant’s petition. Appellant filed an amended petition with more facts which was again denied. Appellant then filed an appeal.
Section 17200, subdivision (a) provides, “Except as provided in Section 15800, a trustee or beneficiary of a trust may petition the court under this chapter concerning the internal affairs of the trust or to determine the existence of the trust.” Under section 24 subdivision (c), a beneficiary of a trust is “a person to whom a donative transfer of property is made” and “who has any present or future interest, vested or contingent.”
The Appellate Court concluded that Appellants argument that standing exists because she was a beneficiary and trustee of prior versions of the Family Trust is insufficient to support a petition under Section 17200. The Appellate Court interpreted the statute, stating “The plain language of Section 17200 makes clear that only a beneficiary or trustee of a trust can file a petition under Section 17200.” There being no ambiguous language in Section 17200, the Appellate Court felt comfortable interpreting the language as such, in order to “select the construction that comports most closely with Legislature’s apparent intent.” Appellant was not a beneficiary under the current version of the Family Trust, being the 24th Amendment of the Family Trust, since she was expressly disinherited and not named as a trustee. Thus, she lacked standing to proceed with a petition under Section 17200 attacking the Family Trust. The Appellate Court did note that while Appellant may have standing under various other statutes, Section 17200 was not one of them.
The finding does not sit well as a person who may have been disinherited as a result of undue influence, lack of capacity, or even fraud would seem to have no standing, short of filing a civil action. The previous approach had been that the Probate Court has exclusive jurisdiction over “proceedings concerning the internal affairs of trust” pursuant to Probate Code § 17000(a) and concurrent jurisdiction over “[a]ctions and proceedings to determine the existence of trusts” pursuant to Probate Code section 17000(b)(1). Probate Code §17002 provides generally that trustees and beneficiaries of trusts with their principal place of administration in the State of California are subject to jurisdiction of California’s probate courts. The probate court is given the broad power and responsibility to supervise and protect the administration of trusts within its jurisdiction. Donahue v. Donahue (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 259, 270; Schwartz v. Labow (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 417, 428(3); Estate of Hammer (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1621, 1634.
The Probate Court has exclusive jurisdiction over “proceedings concerning the internal affairs of trust” pursuant to Probate Code § 17000(a) and concurrent jurisdiction over “[a]ctions and proceedings to determine the existence of trusts” pursuant to Probate Code section 17000(b)(1). Probate Code §17002 provides generally that trustees and beneficiaries of trusts with their principal place of administration in the State of California are subject to jurisdiction of California’s probate courts. The probate court is given the broad power and responsibility to supervise and protect the administration of trusts within its jurisdiction. Donahue v. Donahue (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 259, 270; Schwartz v. Labow (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 417, 428(3); Estate of Hammer (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1621, 1634.
It is clear with the recent changes and uncertainty a qualified attorney is required to protect your rights. If you or someone you know is dealing with a dispute over the administration or execution of trust or estate in California, you should contact an experienced trusts and estates litigation attorney to ensure your interests are represented.
Our experienced Los Angeles conservatorship attorneys are here to help clients in Santa Monica, Orange County and throughout Southern California defend their rights under the law. With a presence in Northern California and Southern California the Law Office of Ginzburg & Bronshteyn, APC is dedicated to providing efficient, effective, strategic, and affordable solutions to clients involved in conservatorship cases, trust and estate disputes, as well as other types of family law issues. We strive for a very pragmatic, thorough and detailed approach in litigated matters. We are here to help you and your loved ones. To discuss your needs and discover your options, consult the Los Angeles incapacity and estate planning attorneys at Ginzburg & Bronshteyn, APC. We serve clients in Los Angeles, Orange County, Ventura County, and throughout Southern and Northern California including Agoura Hills, Berkeley, Beverly Hills, Calabasas, Camarillo, Encino, Hermosa Beach, Hidden Hills, Irvine, Lake Sherwood, Malibu, Marin County, Oxnard, Pasadena, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, Simi Valley, Tarzana, Thousand Oaks, Torrance, West Los Angeles,Westlake Village, and Woodland Hills. Our attorneys are renowned for producing high quality work and working diligently to achieve our client’s goals. If you or someone you know is dealing with a dispute over the administration or execution of trust or estate in California, you should contact an experienced trusts and estates litigation attorney to ensure your interests are represented. We have developed a reputation for effective representation in complex and sophisticated matters as we guide you through the complex legal process. We are experienced in obtaining and defending against conservatorships. If you have questions about a loved one’s mental capacity, call the law firm of Ginzburg & Bronshteyn, APC at (310) 914-3222, (415) 465-6555, or (818) 787-1011, or reach us by using our online contact form.