Trusts and Estates
Ca. Trs. & Estates Quarterly VOLUME 31, ISSUE 2, 2025
Content
- Chairs of Section Subcommittees
- Editorial Board
- Inside This Issue
- Letter From the Chair
- Letter From the Editor
- McLe Self-study Article Confusion In the Wording and Application of the Laws Governing the Entities and Individuals Conducting the Business of Acting As a Fiduciary Suggests a Need For Improvement
- McLe Self-study Article Some Additional Issues [and Solutions?] Relating To the California Income Taxation of Estates and Trusts
- McLe Self-study Article When, Why and How To Leave Retirement Accounts To Charity
- Tax Alert
- Litigation Alert
LITIGATION ALERT
Written by Michael S. Brophy, Esq., Craig S. Weinstein, Esq., Courtney A., Sorensen, Esq., Sara Z. May, Esq.*
I. DAUGHTER NOT REQUIRED TO REBUT PRESUMPTION OF FATHER’S CAPACITY IN ORDER TO HAVE STANDING TO PURSUE ELDER ABUSE RESTRAINING ORDER ON HIS BEHALF, AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORED FINDING ATTORNEY COMITTED ELDER ABUSE
Herren v. George S. (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 410
The First District Court of Appeal held that a daughter, who was also the trustee and attorney-in-fact for her father, was able to petition on behalf of her father for an elder abuse restraining order against the father’s attorney, and that substantial evidence supported a finding that the father’s attorney committed financial elder abuse by exerting undue influence to obtain a property right from the father.