Beverly Hills Bar Association -- Trusts & Estates Section
Litigation Update (since February 18, 2003)

California Court of Appeal

Trusts and Estates

Estate of Strader (April 11, 2003)(B153652, Second District, LASC Case No. NP004397) A distribution request in the final account of a probate estate, seeking distribution of certain litigation proceeds to the beneficiaries who funded the litigation rather than to all the residuary beneficiaries of the estate, was not an attempt to frustrate the testator's intent and did not violate the no contest clause of the testator's will.
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0403%2FB153652

Germino v. Hillyer (April 9, 2003) (F041268, Fifth District) Failure to advise trust beneficiary of right to a copy of trust document did not render notice under Probate Code Sec. 16061.7 which requires trustee to notify the beneficiaries of the trust when a revocable trust becomes irrevocable because of the death of the settlor of the trust deficient, where trustee had previously provided beneficiary with a copy of the document.
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0403%2FF041268

Estate of Mowry (March 21, 2003) (B160835, Second District) Child adopted before adoptive parent's holographic will was executed was not entitled to distribution as an omitted heir, where presumption of accidental omission was repealed by statute before parent died and child failed to prove omission was accidental.
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0303%2FB160835

Civil Procedure

Corona v. Amherst Partners (April 1, 2003)(D040084, Fourth District) Where a party is required by contract to submit a dispute to binding arbitration, but does not request that the arbitrator decide his entitlement to attorney fees even though that issue was part of the submission, trial court may not determine that issue and make an award of fees and costs incurred in the arbitration.
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0403%2FD040084

Roden v. Bergen Brunswig Corporation (March 28, 2003)(G029574, Fourth District) Where plaintiff accepted defendant's Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 998 offer in employment case, and offer clearly and unambiguously provided for a lump sum payment as well as for the continuation of certain benefits, post settlement communications between parties could not be relied on as evidence that parties' intentions were other than as stated in the offer.
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0403%2FG029574


Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Taxation

Dixon v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (March 18, 2003)(No. 00-70858) Judgment of tax court was vacated due to fraud on the court by the Internal Revenue Service where IRS lawyers agreed to pursue case in court but did not tell court that it already settled secretly with two parties under an agreement requiring them to remain parties to the case, and where IRS lawyer prevented party from testifying about settlement.
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0303%2F

Local Courts

Effective March 17, 2003, all probate filings in the North Central District (Burbank and Glendale) are to be filed in Pasadena (the Northeast District) instead. All probate matters pending in the North Central District will be transferred (by the Court nothing for us to do) to Pasadena, except matters with noticed and pending hearings. Those matters will be transferred to Pasadena after the noticed and pending hearings.

Ventura County Superior Court--Notice of proposed changes to Local Rules:

The Ventura County Superior Court has issued a Notice of proposed changes to their Local Rules. You may view or download proposed revisions to those Local Rules by accessing the Ventura County Superior Court website http://www.courts.countyofventura.org  and clicking on "What's New." These changes are scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2003. Adobe Acrobat Reader is needed to view this file.

The judges would appreciate any comments or recommendations regarding these rules by May 5, 2003. Email any questions or comments to: localrules@mail.co.ventura.ca.us