Author: CPT Team

Riverside County Public Guardian v. Snukst: Medi-Cal Recovery From Revocable Trusts for Deaths Before 2017 (California) – California Legal Guide | CPT Law

Post author By CPT Team
Post date February 10, 2026

California Legal Implications: Medi-Cal Recovery and Trust Assets

A recent appellate court ruling highlights the complex and changing landscape of Medi-Cal Estate Recovery in California. In the case of *Riverside County Public Guardian v. Snukst*, the court determined that the assets in a Revocable Living Trust were subject to reimbursement for Medi-Cal benefits because the decedent passed away in 2016, prior to significant legislative changes. You can read the full opinion here..

For California families today, this case serves as a crucial reminder of how estate planning laws evolve and the importance of shielding assets from potential government recovery. While the laws have become more favorable for heirs since 2017, understanding the distinction between the “probate estate” and trust assets remains vital for preserving generational wealth.

The Evolution of Medi-Cal Recovery Rules

The *Snukst* case turned on the date of the decedent’s death. Under the law applicable prior to January 1, 2017, California utilized a broad federal definition of “estate” for Medi-Cal recovery purposes. This definition included assets conveyed to heirs through living trusts, effectively making trust assets fair game for the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to recoup costs paid for medical care.

However, on January 1, 2017, California Senate Bill 833 (SB 833) dramatically changed these rules. For individuals who pass away on or after this date, Medi-Cal Estate Recovery is generally limited only to the “probate estate.” is generally limited only to the “probate estate.”

Why a Revocable Living Trust is Powerful Today

Because current law limits recovery to the probate estate, assets held within a properly funded Revocable Living Trust typically avoid the probate process entirely. Consequently, for many Californians, placing a home or other significant assets into a trust can legally shield those assets from Medi-Cal recovery claims after death. typically avoid the probate process entirely. Consequently, for many Californians, placing a home or other significant assets into a trust can legally shield those assets from Medi-Cal recovery claims after death.

Had the decedent in the *Snukst* case passed away just a few months later, in 2017, the outcome likely would have been different, and the trust assets might have passed to the beneficiary intact. This highlights the necessity of:

1. Creating a Comprehensive Estate Plan: Relying on a Will alone often leads to probate, which subjects assets to mandatory creditor claims, including Medi-Cal.
2. Updating Estate Plans: Laws change frequently. What was true a decade ago regarding asset protection may not be true today.
3. Proper Trust Funding: A trust only works if assets are properly retitled in the name of the trust.: A trust only works if assets are properly retitled in the name of the trust.

About This Case

In *Riverside County Public Guardian v. Snukst*, the decedent received approximately $480,000 in Medi-Cal benefits before dying in 2016. His assets were held in a revocable trust. The appellate court ruled that because he died before the 2017 law change, the old rules applied, subjecting the trust assets to reimbursement claims by the state.

Source: Riverside County Public Guardian v. Snukst: Medi-Cal Recovery From Revocable Trusts for Deaths Before 2017

California Probate and Trust, PC Can Help

– Free consultations: (866)-674-1130
– Experienced California estate planning
– Schedule consultation
– Learn more: cpt.law

Legal Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only. Consult with a qualified California estate planning attorney for advice specific to your situation.

Tags Avoiding Probate, Court Rulings

News Trusts

Placencia v. Strazicich: Joint Bank Accounts and Inheritance Disputes in California – California Legal Guide | CPT Law

Post author By CPT Team
Post date February 10, 2026

California Legal Implications: Joint Bank Accounts and the Right of Survivorship

In the case of *Placencia v. Strazicich*, the California Court of Appeal addressed a frequent source of family conflict: what happens when a parent’s Will contradicts the beneficiary designation on a bank account? The court determined that a decedent’s Will contained clear and convincing evidence sufficient to defeat the presumption of a right of survivorship on a joint tenancy account. Although the bank was contractually correct in releasing funds to the surviving daughter listed on the account, the court ruled that the funds ultimately belonged to the estate based on the father’s specific written intent. For California families, this case underscores the critical distinction between administrative account terms and true beneficial ownership..

The Danger of “Convenience” Accounts

It is common for aging parents in California to add an adult child to their bank accounts. Often, this is done for “convenience”—to allow the child to help pay bills or manage finances. However, most banks set these up as Joint Tenancy accounts with a right of survivorship..

Under the California Probate Code, the default rule is that when one joint tenant dies, the remaining balance belongs entirely to the surviving owner. This automatic transfer bypasses the decedent’s Revocable Living Trust or Will, potentially disinheriting other siblings and defeating the parent’s estate planning goals., potentially disinheriting other siblings and defeating the parent’s estate planning goals.

Rebutting the Presumption of Survivorship

The *Placencia* ruling clarifies that the right of survivorship is not absolute; it is a legal presumption. This presumption can be overcome if the contesting party provides clear and convincing evidence that the original account holder intended the funds to be distributed differently. that the original account holder intended the funds to be distributed differently.

In this specific case, the father had explicitly stated in his Will that he did not want the daughter listed on the account to succeed to the funds, but rather wanted the assets distributed to his Trust for the benefit of all three daughters. Because this written intent was undeniable, the court prioritized the testamentary intent over the standard banking contract. over the standard banking contract.

Legal Title vs. Beneficial Interest

A vital takeaway from this ruling is the distinction the court drew between the “terms of the account” and the “beneficial interest.”

1. Terms of the Account: This protects the financial institution. The bank is generally safe to pay the funds to the survivor listed on the paperwork.
2. Beneficial Interest: This determines who actually owns the money. Even if the bank pays the surviving child, that child may be legally required to surrender those funds to the Probate estate or Trust if the court finds the parent intended the account to be a shared inheritance. or Trust if the court finds the parent intended the account to be a shared inheritance.

Avoiding Litigation Through Proper Funding

While the estate ultimately won in *Placencia*, the victory required a lawsuit and an appeal. To avoid this costly process, California residents should ensure their assets are properly “funded” into their Living Trust. Relying on a Will to correct a bank account title is risky. The best practice is to retitle accounts in the name of the Trust or update beneficiary designations to align perfectly with the overall estate plan.. Relying on a Will to correct a bank account title is risky. The best practice is to retitle accounts in the name of the Trust or update beneficiary designations to align perfectly with the overall estate plan.

About This Case

Source: Placencia v. Strazicich: Joint Bank Accounts and Inheritance Disputes in California

California Probate and Trust, PC Can Help

– Free consultations: (866)-674-1130
– Experienced California estate planning
– Schedule consultation
– Learn more: cpt.law

Legal Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only. Consult with a qualified California estate planning attorney for advice specific to your situation.

Tags Court Rulings, Estate Litigation Prevention

News Trusts

People ex rel. Becerra v. Shine: Charitable Trust Enforcement and Attorney Fee Awards in California – California Legal Guide | CPT Law

Post author By CPT Team
Post date February 10, 2026

California Legal Implications: Trustee Accountability and Attorney Fees

A significant ruling by the California Court of Appeal has reinforced the strict financial liabilities trustees face when they mismanage trust assets. As detailed in the appellate decision regarding *People ex rel. Becerra v. Shine*, a trustee found guilty of gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty may be personally liable for the Attorney General’s legal fees, without the court applying a strict “effectiveness test” regarding how many specific allegations were proven. This decision highlights the critical importance of proper trust administration and the severe consequences of failing to uphold fiduciary duties..

The High Standard of Fiduciary Duty

In California, a trustee is a fiduciary, meaning they are held to the highest standard of care under the law. When an individual accepts the role of trustee, they agree to manage the trust’s assets solely in the best interest of the beneficiaries and in strict accordance with the trust document., meaning they are held to the highest standard of care under the law. When an individual accepts the role of trustee, they agree to manage the trust’s assets solely in the best interest of the beneficiaries and in strict accordance with the trust document.

In the *Shine* case, the trustee was found to have committed multiple breaches, including:
– Failing to create and fund a charitable foundation as required by the trust.
– allowing improper tax returns to be filed.
– Allowing a corporation wholly owned by the trust to lose its Subchapter S status.
– Using trust funds to issue loans to personal friends.

These actions constitute a violation of the Duty of Loyalty and the duty to administer the trust with reasonable care and skill. For anyone serving as a trustee in California, this serves as a stark warning: personal relationships and lack of administrative diligence can lead to removal and personal financial liability. and the duty to administer the trust with reasonable care and skill. For anyone serving as a trustee in California, this serves as a stark warning: personal relationships and lack of administrative diligence can lead to removal and personal financial liability.

Financial Consequences of Breach of Trust

When a trustee breaches their duties, the court has the power to “surcharge” them. A surcharge is a court order requiring the trustee to personally repay the trust for losses caused by their mismanagement or misconduct. In the *Shine* case, the trustee was surcharged over one million dollars. is a court order requiring the trustee to personally repay the trust for losses caused by their mismanagement or misconduct. In the *Shine* case, the trustee was surcharged over one million dollars.

However, the financial pain did not end there. The court also ordered the trustee to pay over $1.6 million in attorney fees and costs incurred by the Attorney General. The trustee attempted to argue that because the Attorney General did not win on every single allegation (prevailing on 7 out of 19), the fee award should be reduced. The Court of Appeal rejected this, affirming that an “effectiveness test” is not required. Because the trustee’s conduct was grossly negligent and necessitated his removal, he was liable for the full scope of reasonable legal fees.

Oversight of Charitable Trusts

While private trusts are accountable to specific beneficiaries, Charitable Trusts are a unique area of estate planning. Because the ultimate beneficiaries are the public or a charitable cause, the California Attorney General acts as the overseer to ensure the funds are used correctly. are a unique area of estate planning. Because the ultimate beneficiaries are the public or a charitable cause, the California Attorney General acts as the overseer to ensure the funds are used correctly.

Families establishing charitable foundations or trusts must ensure they appoint competent trustees who understand the complexities of tax filings, corporate status maintenance, and the absolute prohibition against self-dealing or favoring friends.

Importance of Professional Guidance

To avoid the severe penalties seen in this case, trustees should seek professional legal counsel immediately upon assuming office. An experienced estate planning attorney can guide trustees through:
– Proper asset management and record-keeping.
– Understanding the specific terms of the trust.
– Compliance with California Probate Code.
– Defense against allegations of misconduct. can guide trustees through:
– Proper asset management and record-keeping.
– Understanding the specific terms of the trust.
– Compliance with California Probate Code.
– Defense against allegations of misconduct.

About This Case

Source: People ex rel. Becerra v. Shine

California Probate and Trust, PC Can Help

– Free consultations: (866)-674-1130
– Experienced California estate planning
– Schedule consultation
– Learn more: cpt.law

Legal Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only. Consult with a qualified California estate planning attorney for advice specific to your situation.

Tags Court Rulings, Trust Administration

California Probate News

Conservatorship of Bryan S.: Can an LPS Conservatee Refuse to Testify in California? – California Legal Guide | CPT Law

Post author By CPT Team
Post date February 10, 2026

California Legal Implications: Testimony Rights in Conservatorship Proceedings

A recent decision by the California Court of Appeal, First District, has clarified the rights of individuals facing involuntary commitment proceedings. As detailed in the summary of the case, the court ruled in *Conservatorship of Bryan S.* that proposed conservatees in LPS Conservatorship cases do not possess a constitutional right to refuse to testify at their own trials. cases do not possess a constitutional right to refuse to testify at their own trials.

The court determined that unlike criminal defendants, who have Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination, a proposed conservatee is involved in a civil proceeding designed for protection and treatment rather than punishment. Consequently, they are not “similarly situated” to criminal defendants and can be compelled to testify regarding their grave disability..

For California families, this ruling highlights the distinct legal nature of conservatorships compared to criminal law. It underscores the importance of understanding the specific type of conservatorship being sought and the procedural rights attached to it.

Understanding the Difference: Civil vs. Criminal Proceedings

The distinction drawn in *Conservatorship of Bryan S.* is vital for anyone navigating the California probate court system. Conservatorships are civil legal tools used to appoint a responsible person or organization to care for another adult who cannot care for themselves or manage their finances. are civil legal tools used to appoint a responsible person or organization to care for another adult who cannot care for themselves or manage their finances.

Because the ultimate goal is the safety and well-being of the individual (the conservatee), rather than incarceration or punishment, the court creates different procedural rules. While the conservatee retains significant due process rights—such as the right to an attorney and a jury trial—the right to remain silent is generally reserved for criminal matters where testimony could lead to prosecution. rights—such as the right to an attorney and a jury trial—the right to remain silent is generally reserved for criminal matters where testimony could lead to prosecution.

LPS Conservatorships vs. Probate Conservatorships

The case referenced specifically deals with a Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Conservatorship. This type of conservatorship is specifically for individuals found to be gravely disabled due to a mental health disorder and usually requires initiation by a medical professional or public guardian. due to a mental health disorder and usually requires initiation by a medical professional or public guardian.

However, most California families engaging in estate planning are more likely to encounter Probate Conservatorships. These are typically sought for aging loved ones suffering from dementia, Alzheimer’s, or other physical incapacities.. These are typically sought for aging loved ones suffering from dementia, Alzheimer’s, or other physical incapacities.

Key distinctions include:

* Initiation: Family members can petition directly for a Probate Conservatorship, whereas an LPS Conservatorship generally starts with government or medical intervention.
* Powers: A Probate Conservatorship usually covers the power to make medical decisions and manage finances (Conservatorship of the Estate), but generally does not allow for placement in a locked mental health facility, which is a hallmark of LPS proceedings.
* Duration: LPS conservatorships must be renewed annually, while Probate conservatorships typically remain in effect until the conservatee passes away or regains capacity. LPS conservatorships must be renewed annually, while Probate conservatorships typically remain in effect until the conservatee passes away or regains capacity.

The Role of Advance Planning

While conservatorships are necessary safety nets, they are complex, public, and court-supervised. Many families prefer to avoid court intervention entirely through comprehensive estate planning.

By establishing a Revocable Living Trust and executing a durable Power of Attorney and Advance Health Care Directive while you have capacity, you can designate trusted agents to manage your affairs. This often eliminates the need for a court to compel testimony or appoint a stranger to make decisions on your behalf. while you have capacity, you can designate trusted agents to manage your affairs. This often eliminates the need for a court to compel testimony or appoint a stranger to make decisions on your behalf.

About This Case

Source: Conservatorship of Bryan S.: Can an LPS Conservatee Refuse to Testify in California?

California Probate and Trust, PC Can Help

– Free consultations: (866)-674-1130
– Experienced California estate planning
– Schedule consultation
– Learn more: cpt.law

Legal Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only. Consult with a qualified California estate planning attorney for advice specific to your situation.

Tags Court Rulings

California Probate News

Estate of Ashlock: Bad-Faith Estate Misappropriation Can Trigger Double Penalties in California – California Legal Guide | CPT Law

Post author By CPT Team
Post date February 10, 2026

California Legal Implications: Bad Faith Actions Trigger Severe Financial Penalties

A recent ruling in the California Court of Appeal serves as a stark warning to individuals managing estate assets. In the case of *Estate of Ashlock*, summarized in this court opinion, the court affirmed that individuals who misappropriate estate property in “bad faith” face severe financial consequences. The court ruled that the wrongdoer must return the stolen property and pay an additional penalty equal to twice the value of that property, effectively resulting in triple damages., the court affirmed that individuals who misappropriate estate property in “bad faith” face severe financial consequences. The court ruled that the wrongdoer must return the stolen property and pay an additional penalty equal to twice the value of that property, effectively resulting in triple damages.

For California families, trustees, and beneficiaries, this case highlights the critical importance of fiduciary duty and the severe statutory penalties designed to protect estate assets from theft and fraud.

Understanding California Probate Code Section 859

The core of this legal dispute revolves around California Probate Code Section 859, often referred to as the “double damages” statute. This law is designed to punish those who wrongfully take, conceal, or dispose of property belonging to a specific estate, trust, or conservatorship., often referred to as the “double damages” statute. This law is designed to punish those who wrongfully take, conceal, or dispose of property belonging to a specific estate, trust, or conservatorship.

To trigger these penalties, the court must find that the individual acted in bad faith. This means the act was not merely an administrative error or a misunderstanding, but rather an intentional act of wrongdoing or dishonesty.. This means the act was not merely an administrative error or a misunderstanding, but rather an intentional act of wrongdoing or dishonesty.

The Math of Misappropriation Penalties

Prior to *Estate of Ashlock*, there was some legal ambiguity regarding how these damages were calculated due to conflicting case law (specifically a conflict between *Conservatorship of Ribal* and *Estate of Kraus*). The *Ashlock* ruling clarifies the calculation method used by the courts, favoring a stricter interpretation against the wrongdoer.

Under this ruling, the financial liability is calculated as follows:
1. Restitution (Section 856): The wrongdoer must return the original misappropriated property (or its value).
2. Penalty (Section 859): The wrongdoer must pay a separate penalty equal to twice the value of the recovered property. The wrongdoer must pay a separate penalty equal to twice the value of the recovered property.

In the *Ashlock* case, the individual misappropriated approximately $5 million. The court ordered the return of the $5 million, *plus* a penalty of $10 million. This resulted in a total liability of $15 million.

The Importance of Fiduciary Selection

This case underscores the vital importance of selecting trustworthy fiduciaries (trustees, executors, or personal representatives). When creating an estate plan, choosing the right person to manage assets is the first line of defense against misappropriation. (trustees, executors, or personal representatives). When creating an estate plan, choosing the right person to manage assets is the first line of defense against misappropriation.

Conversely, for beneficiaries who suspect that an executor or trustee is stealing from an estate, this ruling provides a powerful tool for recovery. It ensures that bad actors cannot simply return what was taken if caught; they face ruinous financial penalties that serve as a deterrent and a means to make the estate whole.

About This Case

Source: Estate of Ashlock: Bad-Faith Estate Misappropriation Can Trigger Double Penalties in California

California Probate and Trust, PC Can Help

– Free consultations: (866)-674-1130
– Experienced California estate planning
– Schedule consultation
– Learn more: cpt.law

Legal Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only. Consult with a qualified California estate planning attorney for advice specific to your situation.

Tags Court Rulings, Estate Litigation Prevention

Estate Planning News Trusts

Sachs v. Sachs: When Lifetime Gifts Reduce a California Trust Inheritance – California Legal Guide | CPT Law

Post author By CPT Team
Post date February 10, 2026

California Legal Implications: How Lifetime Gifts Affect Inheritance

A recent California Court of Appeal decision highlights a critical question for many families: if a parent gives money to a child while they are alive, does that money count against the child’s share of the inheritance later?

In the case of *Sachs v. Sachs*, a father maintained a handwritten “permanent record” tracking financial gifts made to his two children over the years. One child received approximately $450,000 more than the other during the father’s lifetime. After the father passed, the court ruled that these documented gifts were advancements, meaning they were effectively early inheritance payments. Consequently, the court allowed the successor trustee to deduct these amounts from the final trust distribution to ensure equal treatment of the beneficiaries. to deduct these amounts from the final trust distribution to ensure equal treatment of the beneficiaries.

This ruling underscores the importance of clear documentation when transferring wealth. For California families, understanding how to properly document these transactions can prevent years of litigation and sibling resentment.

What Qualifies as an Advancement?

Under California law, a gift made during a person’s lifetime is generally treated as a distinct gift, not an advance on inheritance, unless specific criteria are met. However, as seen in *Sachs v. Sachs*, a lifetime gift can be treated as a satisfaction of an at-death transfer (inheritance) if: (inheritance) if:

1. The instrument providing for the transfer (such as the Trust or Will) expressly states that the gift is to be deducted.
2. The transferor declares in a contemporaneous writing that the gift is to be deducted from the heir’s share.
3. The transferee (the recipient) acknowledges in writing that the gift is in satisfaction of the inheritance.

In this case, the father’s handwritten record satisfied the requirement for a contemporaneous writing, proving his intent to treat the payments as advances.

The Role of Intent and Documentation

The core issue in *Sachs* was testator intent. The father explicitly told his bookkeeper that maintaining the list was important to deduct payments from future inheritances. Because he kept a running tally of dates and amounts, the court found this “permanent record” served no other purpose than to equalize the final distribution of his estate.. The father explicitly told his bookkeeper that maintaining the list was important to deduct payments from future inheritances. Because he kept a running tally of dates and amounts, the court found this “permanent record” served no other purpose than to equalize the final distribution of his estate.

For estate planners and trustees, this serves as a reminder that formal trust amendments are not the only way to impact distribution, though they are the safest. The court allowed extrinsic evidence—evidence outside the four corners of the trust document—to interpret the father’s handwritten notes. While the court accepted the notes in this specific instance, relying on informal papers often leads to expensive legal battles.—evidence outside the four corners of the trust document—to interpret the father’s handwritten notes. While the court accepted the notes in this specific instance, relying on informal papers often leads to expensive legal battles.

Best Practices for California Families

To avoid the ambiguity that led to the *Sachs* litigation, families should formalize their intentions. If you intend for a loan or a gift to a child to be deducted from their final inheritance, it is vital to:
– Explicitly state this in your Revocable Living Trust.
– Create a signed document at the time of the gift, signed by both the parent and the child, acknowledging that the amount is an advancement.
– Keep clear, organized financial records that are easily accessible to your successor trustee..

Without clear evidence, the law generally presumes a gift is just a gift. By consulting with a qualified attorney, you can structure these transfers to reflect your true wishes and protect your family’s harmony.

About This Case

Source: Sachs v. Sachs: When Lifetime Gifts Reduce a California Trust Inheritance

California Probate and Trust, PC Can Help

– Free consultations: (866)-674-1130
– Experienced California estate planning
– Schedule consultation
– Learn more: cpt.law

Legal Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only. Consult with a qualified California estate planning attorney for advice specific to your situation.

Tags Court Rulings, Wealth Preservation

News Trusts

Donkin v. Donkin: Can a Non-Attorney Trustee Represent a Trust in California Probate? – California Legal Guide | CPT Law

Post author By CPT Team
Post date February 10, 2026

California Legal Implications: Trustee Self-Representation in Probate Court

A significant ruling in the case of *Donkin v. Donkin* has clarified the rules regarding whether a non-attorney trustee can represent themselves in California probate court. The California Court of Appeal ruled that trustees representing themselves in disputes against beneficiaries are not engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. This distinction is vital for California families involved in trust administration, as summarized from the court opinion..

For many successor trustees, the line between managing a trust and practicing law can seem blurry. While California law generally prohibits non-attorneys from representing others in court, the *Donkin* decision highlights a specific exception based on the nature of the dispute.

The General Rule: Unauthorized Practice of Law

Under California law, a person who is not an attorney cannot represent another person or entity in court. This concept is known as the unauthorized practice of law. Historically, courts have viewed a trustee appearing in court on behalf of a trust as representing the interests of the trust’s beneficiaries. Since the trustee is effectively representing others (the beneficiaries), previous case law suggested that a non-attorney trustee must hire a lawyer for litigation.. Historically, courts have viewed a trustee appearing in court on behalf of a trust as representing the interests of the trust’s beneficiaries. Since the trustee is effectively representing others (the beneficiaries), previous case law suggested that a non-attorney trustee must hire a lawyer for litigation.

Third-Party Litigation vs. Internal Probate Disputes

The court in *Donkin* drew a critical distinction between two types of legal actions:

1. Litigation Against Third Parties: If a trustee is suing a third party (someone outside the trust) to recover assets or defend the trust, they are acting on behalf of the beneficiaries. In these instances, a non-attorney trustee generally cannot represent the trust and must hire an attorney. To do otherwise would be the unauthorized practice of law because the trustee is advocating for the beneficiaries’ financial interests. represent the trust and must hire an attorney. To do otherwise would be the unauthorized practice of law because the trustee is advocating for the beneficiaries’ financial interests.

2. Internal Probate Proceedings: The *Donkin* case involved a dispute *between* the trustees and the beneficiaries regarding the interpretation of trust terms. The court reasoned that in this specific scenario, the trustee is not representing the beneficiaries; rather, the parties are adverse to one another. Because the trustee is not advocating for the beneficiaries in this context, representing themselves (appearing in pro per) does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law.) does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law.

Why This Matters for Estate Planning

For California residents creating a Revocable Living Trust, this ruling underscores the importance of selecting a capable successor trustee. While the court permits self-representation in internal disputes, California probate law is incredibly complex. A trustee attempting to navigate the California Probate Code without legal counsel risks making errors that could lead to removal or financial liability. without legal counsel risks making errors that could lead to removal or financial liability.

The Role of Professional Counsel

Although a trustee *may* represent themselves in disputes against beneficiaries, it is rarely advisable. Professional legal guidance ensures that:
– Fiduciary duties are strictly followed.
– Trust assets are properly accounted for.
– Family conflicts are managed with an objective legal perspective.
– The trustee is protected from personal liability for administrative errors. are strictly followed.
– Trust assets are properly accounted for.
– Family conflicts are managed with an objective legal perspective.
– The trustee is protected from personal liability for administrative errors.

If you are appointed as a trustee, understanding when you require legal representation is the first step in a successful trust administration.

About This Case

Source: Donkin v. Donkin

California Probate and Trust, PC Can Help

– Free consultations: (866)-674-1130
– Experienced California estate planning
– Schedule consultation
– Learn more: cpt.law

Legal Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only. Consult with a qualified California estate planning attorney for advice specific to your situation.

Tags Court Rulings, Trust Administration

Estate Planning News Trusts

Say goodbye to Denny’s restaurants after iconic diner owner filed for bankruptcy and final sale of chain confirmed – California Legal Guide | CPT Law

Post author By CPT Team
Post date February 10, 2026

California Legal Implications: Business Succession and Asset Protection

Recent reports indicate that a major franchise owner of the iconic Denny’s restaurant chain filed for bankruptcy, leading to abrupt closures and the sale of locations across the Midwest. As detailed in the original news story, the franchise owner, identified in court papers as Denn-Ohio, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, resulting in immediate shutdowns and a $620 million acquisition deal. While this specific case involves a Midwest franchise, the sudden collapse of a long-standing business carries significant lessons for California business owners regarding estate planning and business succession..

The Role of Business Succession Planning

For many California residents, a family business is the most valuable asset in their estate. The Denny’s case illustrates how quickly operational issues and debt can lead to liquidation. Without a robust Business Succession Plan, a company may be forced into a “fire sale” or abrupt closure upon the owner’s death or incapacity, significantly devaluing the inheritance intended for beneficiaries., a company may be forced into a “fire sale” or abrupt closure upon the owner’s death or incapacity, significantly devaluing the inheritance intended for beneficiaries.

A comprehensive plan often includes a Buy-Sell Agreement, which dictates how business shares are reassigned or sold if an owner dies, becomes disabled, or files for bankruptcy. For sole proprietorships or partnerships, placing business interests into a Revocable Living Trust can ensure seamless continuity of management, avoiding the delays of court processes. can ensure seamless continuity of management, avoiding the delays of court processes.

Avoiding Probate for Business Assets

When a business owner passes away without a Trust, their business assets typically must go through Probate in California courts. Probate is a public, lengthy, and expensive process. During this time, the business may lack legal leadership, which can be disastrous for day-to-day operations. in California courts. Probate is a public, lengthy, and expensive process. During this time, the business may lack legal leadership, which can be disastrous for day-to-day operations.

In the case of the Denny’s franchise, “operational issues” and broken facilities preceded the closure. In a probate scenario, a Personal Representative or Executor must be appointed by a judge before they can authorize repairs, pay employees, or manage vendors. This delay can destroy the value of the business before heirs ever receive it. By utilizing a Trust, a successor Trustee can step in immediately to manage assets, pay debts, or sell the business in an orderly fashion, preserving value for the beneficiaries. can step in immediately to manage assets, pay debts, or sell the business in an orderly fashion, preserving value for the beneficiaries.

Bankruptcy and Asset Protection

The franchise owner in this story filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In the context of estate planning, it is crucial to understand that a standard Revocable Trust does not protect assets from legitimate creditors during the grantor’s lifetime. However, advanced planning strategies, such as Irrevocable Trusts or the formation of specific business entities (like LLCs), can provide layers of protection between personal assets and business liabilities. or the formation of specific business entities (like LLCs), can provide layers of protection between personal assets and business liabilities.

For California business owners, distinguishing personal wealth from business risk is essential. If a business fails, proper planning ensures that a family’s personal estate—such as the family home or savings—remains secure for future generations.

About This Case

Source: Say goodbye to Denny’s restaurants after iconic diner owner filed for bankruptcy and final sale of chain confirmed

California Probate and Trust, PC Can Help

– Free consultations: (866)-674-1130
– Experienced California estate planning
– Schedule consultation
– Learn more: cpt.law

Legal Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only. Consult with a qualified California estate planning attorney for advice specific to your situation.

Estate Planning News Trusts

Savannah Guthrie vs Annie Guthrie net worth: Who is richer? A comparison of their assets and properties | California Legal Guide | CPT Law

Post author By CPT Team
Post date February 10, 2026

California Legal Implications: Emergency Planning and Family Wealth Disparities

The distressing news regarding the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, mother of *Today* show host Savannah Guthrie, has brought intense public scrutiny to the family’s finances. As reported in the Hindustan Times, a ransom demand has illuminated the vast wealth gap between Savannah, who holds an estimated net worth of $40 million, and her sister Annie, a Tucson-based educator and artist with a middle-class standing. While this is a high-profile criminal case, the underlying issues regarding missing persons, access to assets during a crisis, and unequal beneficiary wealth are critical considerations for California estate planning., a ransom demand has illuminated the vast wealth gap between Savannah, who holds an estimated net worth of $40 million, and her sister Annie, a Tucson-based educator and artist with a middle-class standing. While this is a high-profile criminal case, the underlying issues regarding missing persons, access to assets during a crisis, and unequal beneficiary wealth are critical considerations for California estate planning.

Managing Assets During a Crisis or Disappearance

When a family member goes missing—whether due to kidnapping, cognitive wandering, or a disaster—accessing their financial resources can become immediately impossible without proper planning. In California, if a person disappears and has no estate plan, their bank accounts are effectively frozen.

To access funds for investigators, legal fees, or maintaining the missing person’s home, the family would typically need to petition the court for a Conservatorship of the Estate for a missing person. This is a public, time-consuming, and expensive court process. for a missing person. This is a public, time-consuming, and expensive court process.

However, a comprehensive Revocable Living Trust and a Durable Power of Attorney can often bypass the courts. If assets are held in a Trust, the designated Successor Trustee can step in to manage finances immediately upon the incapacity or absence of the primary trustee, ensuring funds are available for emergencies without court intervention. can step in to manage finances immediately upon the incapacity or absence of the primary trustee, ensuring funds are available for emergencies without court intervention.

Estate Planning for Siblings with Unequal Wealth

The Guthrie case highlights a common scenario in family estate planning: siblings with vastly different financial situations. Savannah Guthrie is a high-net-worth media personality, while her sister Annie is an educator.

When creating a Trust or Will, California parents often grapple with whether to treat children “equally” (50/50 split) or “equitably” (based on need).
– Equal Distribution: Treats all children the same, regardless of financial status. This is the default for most families to avoid emotional conflict.
– Equitable Distribution: A parent might leave a larger share to the child with fewer assets (like the educator sister) and less to the wealthy child.: A parent might leave a larger share to the child with fewer assets (like the educator sister) and less to the wealthy child.

While equitable distribution aims to balance outcomes, it can lead to litigation or family resentment if not carefully drafted and explained within the estate plan. An experienced attorney can help draft language that creates a “No Contest” clause to discourage disputes over unequal distributions.

Privacy Protection in Estate Planning

The news report explicitly details the value of the Guthrie sisters’ homes and Michael Feldman’s net worth. For California residents, maintaining privacy is a primary reason to utilize a Trust rather than a Will. rather than a Will.

When an estate is settled through a Will, it must go through Probate, a public court process. Anyone can request records revealing the deceased’s assets, debts, and beneficiary contact information. Conversely, a Trust is a private contract. The distribution of assets, the value of the estate, and the identity of beneficiaries generally remain out of the public record, protecting the family from scammers and prying eyes., a public court process. Anyone can request records revealing the deceased’s assets, debts, and beneficiary contact information. Conversely, a Trust is a private contract. The distribution of assets, the value of the estate, and the identity of beneficiaries generally remain out of the public record, protecting the family from scammers and prying eyes.

About This Case

Source: Savannah Guthrie vs Annie Guthrie net worth: Who is richer? A comparison of their assets and properties

California Probate and Trust, PC Can Help

– Free consultations: (866)-674-1130
– Experienced California estate planning
– Schedule consultation
– Learn more: cpt.law

Legal Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only. Consult with a qualified California estate planning attorney for advice specific to your situation.

Tags Revocable Trusts, Wealth Preservation

Estate Planning News

Blake Garrett, Child Actor in ‘How to Eat Fried Worms,’ Dead at 33 – California Legal Guide | CPT Law

Post author By CPT Team
Post date February 10, 2026

California Legal Implications: Estate Planning for Young Adults and Sudden Incapacity

The recent passing of Blake Garrett, a former child actor known for his role in “How to Eat Fried Worms,” serves as a tragic reminder of the fragility of life. According to TMZ, Garrett died at the age of 33. His mother reported that he had recently visited the emergency room for shingles and suspects his death may have been a tragic accident related to self-medication for pain. While the family awaits official autopsy results, this heartbreaking event underscores a critical reality for California residents: tragedy can strike at any age., Garrett died at the age of 33. His mother reported that he had recently visited the emergency room for shingles and suspects his death may have been a tragic accident related to self-medication for pain. While the family awaits official autopsy results, this heartbreaking event underscores a critical reality for California residents: tragedy can strike at any age.

For families in California, this situation highlights the vital importance of having a comprehensive estate plan in place, even for young adults who may believe they do not have enough assets to warrant legal planning.

The Necessity of Incapacity Documents

The news report indicates that Garrett sought medical attention for severe pain prior to his death. In California, once an individual turns 18, their parents no longer have the automatic legal authority to make medical decisions or access medical records if the adult child becomes incapacitated.

To ensure family members can assist during medical emergencies, every adult should have:

* Advance Health Care Directive: This document allows an individual to appoint an agent to make healthcare decisions if they are unable to do so themselves.
* HIPAA Authorization: This ensures that doctors can legally share medical status and information with designated family members without violating privacy laws.
* Durable Power of Attorney: This designates an agent to handle financial and legal matters, such as paying bills or managing bank accounts, during a period of incapacity.: This designates an agent to handle financial and legal matters, such as paying bills or managing bank accounts, during a period of incapacity.

Without these documents, families often face the difficult and expensive process of seeking a conservatorship through the court system to gain the authority to help their loved ones. through the court system to gain the authority to help their loved ones.

Intestacy and Asset Distribution

When a young adult passes away without a Will or Trust, their estate is subject to California’s intestate succession laws. This means the state determines who inherits assets based on a statutory formula, rather than the deceased’s wishes. laws. This means the state determines who inherits assets based on a statutory formula, rather than the deceased’s wishes.

For an unmarried individual without children, assets generally pass to their parents. However, if the individual owned a home, a business, or had significant savings, the lack of a Trust means the estate may still have to go through probate court. Probate is a public, lengthy, and costly process in California. Creating a Revocable Living Trust ensures that assets are distributed privately and efficiently, sparing grieving families the burden of court proceedings. ensures that assets are distributed privately and efficiently, sparing grieving families the burden of court proceedings.

Planning for Beneficiaries with History of Substance Abuse

The report mentions that Garrett had “turned things around after becoming sober.” For parents creating estate plans for adult children who have struggled with substance abuse, specific trust provisions can provide protection.

A Spendthrift Trust or a trust with discretionary distribution standards can protect an inheritance from being squandered or used to fund an addiction. Trustees can be given the authority to pay for rehabilitation, housing, and medical care directly, rather than distributing cash to the beneficiary. This ensures the inheritance acts as a safety net rather than a risk factor. or a trust with discretionary distribution standards can protect an inheritance from being squandered or used to fund an addiction. Trustees can be given the authority to pay for rehabilitation, housing, and medical care directly, rather than distributing cash to the beneficiary. This ensures the inheritance acts as a safety net rather than a risk factor.

About This Case

Source: Blake Garrett, Child Actor in ‘How to Eat Fried Worms,’ Dead at 33

California Probate and Trust, PC Can Help

– Free consultations: (866)-674-1130
– Experienced California estate planning
– Schedule consultation
– Learn more: cpt.law

Legal Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only. Consult with a qualified California estate planning attorney for advice specific to your situation.

Tags College Students, Durable Power Of Attorney, Healthcare Power Of Attorney, HIPAA Authorization

Contact Information

Our Address:

Business Hours

Quick Link:

Website Disclaimers