Probate and Elder Abuse Litigation

Weintraub Tobin is pleased to announce that Gary D. Rothstein has joined our San Francisco office as Of Counsel.

Gary comes to us Weintraub from a national law and consulting firm. Gary has extensive experience with all aspects of trust administration, probate matters and estate planning.

With offices in San Francisco, Beverly Hills, Newport Beach

Over thirty-five years after Bing Crosby’s death, the California Court of Appeal put an end to the continuing battle over the Crooner’s right of publicity.

I Can’t Begin to Tell You

In 1930, Harry Lillis Crosby—nicknamed Bing for his love of a newspaper parody, “The Bingville Bugle”—married first wife, Wilma Wyatt (known professionally as Dixie Lee). The mother of his first four sons, Wilma died in 1952. In her Will, Wilma gave her community property to her two sons, which was held for their benefit in a trust known as the Wilma Wyatt Crosby Trust (the “Wilma Trust”).

Over the next several years, Bing was regularly the topic of gossip as he romanced several of Hollywood’s most beautiful women. In 1957, Bing married Kathryn Grant, a young actress and singer that Bing met on the Paramount lot. Together they had three children and remained married until Bing’s death on October 14, 1977 on a golf course in Madrid.

Bing left the residue of his estate to a trust for the benefit of his wife, Kathryn. Subsequent to Bing’s death, HLC Properties, Limited (“HLC”) was formed for the purpose of managing Bing’s interests, including his right of publicity.

Pennies from Heaven

Under the common law of California, there exists a “right of publicity” in a person’s name, likeness and identity. In 1971, the California Legislature established a statutory right of publicity in a person’s “name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness.” After a controversial California Supreme Court decision in 2007, the California Legislature clarified that the right of publicity is freely transferable “by means of trust or testamentary documents.”


Continue Reading Celebrity Trusts & Estates: Another Battle in the Saga of Bing Crosby’s Right of Publicity Comes to an End

EdCThe California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District issued a ruling Tuesday in Lintz v. Lintz, 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 27 (6th Dist. January 14, 2014) adopting the reasoning of the Second Appellate District regarding the standard for legal capacity to execute a trust instrument (as announced by the Second Appellate District in

Family Drama

Casey Kasem’s three adult children from his first marriage have spent the last several months in L.A. County Superior Court fighting their stepmother, Jean, for control of their father’s personal affairs through a conservatorship proceeding.

Casey’s daughter Julie originally filed a petition seeking to be appointed conservator of her father based on claims that Jean had been isolating the beloved American Top 40 host since he became essentially bedridden this past summer due to advanced Parkinson’s Disease. The petition alleged that their stepmother (best known for playing the wife of Nick Tortelli on “Cheers”) has refused their visits despite their father’s requests. Since such accusations of isolation are considered a form of elder abuse in California, Jean naturally denied these claims, saying that unspecified “disturbing” conduct by the stepchildren would make visits in the family home an “intolerable and unpleasant experience for us all, including specifically [for] Casey.”

Despite the accusations of abuse, the children’s request for an emergency conservatorship was denied on November 19, 2013. At that hearing, the judge indicated that Casey was “receiving either good to excellent care” and found “no good cause for a temporary conservatorship.” However, the independent court investigator’s report confirmed that Casey wants to see his children. In light of this, the court instructed each side to set aside its “bad blood” and attempt to resolve their problems. Predictably, Jean’s initial offer to allow the children to see their father for one hour per month under heavy security was rejected by the children. Jean and Julie announced at the December 20, 2013 hearing that they have reached a settlement regarding visitation, though the details were not revealed. Casey’s other daughter, Kerri, has so far been unwilling to agree to the restrictions Jean wants to place on visitation and says she may file a petition to see her father without those restrictions.


Continue Reading Celebrity Trusts & Estates: Casey Kasem Conservatorship Battle Highlights the Need for Clarity Regarding Control over Visitation

When it comes to heading-off potential lawsuits, one of the most powerful weapons in a trustee’s arsenal is the “notification by the trustee.” By sending this notice to beneficiaries and heirs, the trustee can cut the timeframe for filing a trust contest down to a mere 120 days. Because of this, a solid understanding of the procedural issues involved with the notification is critical for both the trustee and potential contestants.

In handling a trust contest, it is important to recognize that procedural issues in probate cases are governed by both the Probate Code and the Code of Civil Procedure. This can lead to somewhat complicated—and not always obvious—consequences. What’s more, guidance from the courts regarding the overlap of these two codes is scant. Luckily, in the past few months the Courts of Appeal have issued two opinions specifically discussing procedural issues involving the 120-day statute of limitations triggered by a trustee’s notice.

From these cases, we learn that a trust contest is “brought” at the time it is filed (not when it is served) and that the 120-day window is not extended simply because the notice is sent by mail.

The Notification:

With a typical revocable trust, the trust becomes irrevocable when the settlor dies. The trustee then has sixty days to give notice to the beneficiaries and heirs that the trust is now irrevocable. The Probate Code also requires the trustee to include the following information: (1) the identity of the settlor and date the trust was signed; (2) the trustee’s contact information; (3) the “principal place of administration” of the trust (usually the trustee’s residential or business address); (4) that the recipient is entitled to a copy of the trust; and (5) any additional information the trust requires the trustee to include. Finally, since the trust is now irrevocable because of the settlor’s death, the notice must also include the following warning (in its own paragraph and in not less than 10-point boldface font):

“You may not bring an action to contest the trust more than 120 days from the date this notification by the trustee is served upon you or 60 days from the date on which a copy of the terms of the trust is mailed or personally delivered to you during that 120-day period, whichever is later.”


Continue Reading When Applying the 120-Day Statute of Limitations Under Probate Code § 16061.8, When is a Trust Contest “Brought?”