Trusts and Estates
Ca. Trs. & Estates Quarterly 2022, Volume 28, Issue 3
Content
- Chairs of Section Subcommittees
- Editorial Board
- Letter From the Chair
- Letter From the Editor
- Litigation Alert
- McLe Self-study Article A Snarl of Conflicting Presumptions—In re Brace and Estate of Wall Continue California's Struggle To Square the Conflicting Presumptions Set Forth In Family Code Section 760 and Evidence Code Section 662
- McLe Self-study Article California's Adoption of the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act
- McLe Self-study Article Lps, General, and Limited Conservatorships: Where We Were, Where We Are and Where We Might Be Going
- Tax Alert
- Tips of the Trade: Ira Planning—Gaining Security In a Post-secure World
- TRUSTS & ESTATES QUARTERLY
- McLe Self-study Article Extrinsic Fraud: Will the Real Slim Fraudster Please Stand Up?
MCLE SELF-STUDY ARTICLE EXTRINSIC FRAUD: WILL THE REAL SLIM FRAUDSTER PLEASE STAND UP?
Written by Ellen McKissock, Esq. and Allonn E. Levy, Esq.*
I. SETTING THE STAGE
Notwithstanding Mr. Marshall’s1 passionate calls for transparency, determining who the real "slim shady"2 is in a court of law can be challenging. That challenge becomes exceptionally important in probate cases, because the legislature has determined that orders for probate become final in a very short period of time.3 It is a reality that is ripe for mischief. After all, probate orders can forever include or exclude family members and decide the fate of millions of dollars in property and assets.
Understandably then, both the Probate Code and common law have ameliorated the otherwise harsh result of finality by recognizing the equitable powers of courts to set aside final orders of probate on the basis of extrinsic fraud. The concept is a simple one—if a court determines that fraud external to the proceedings themselves has been practiced, it may elect to void an otherwise final order, restoring justice.