Bad fact coming up.\u00a0 \u201cOn October 22, 2006, David had Janice execute a durable power of attorney in his favor.\u00a0 At the time, Janice was semi-comatose<\/strong>.\u00a0 At trial, David \u201ccould [not] remember speaking with Janice’s physicians as to whether she had the capacity to sign the power of attorney.\u201d<\/p>\n More bad facts for David.\u00a0 \u201cOn October 22, 2006, Janice was semi-conscious and undergoing hospice care when an \u2018X\u2019 was placed on the signature line of the power of attorney.\u00a0 Joe Damco, her boyfriend, held Janice’s hand when the \u2018X\u2019 was placed on the signature line of the power of attorney<\/strong> . . . At the time of her death, Janice’s doctors assumed the cancer had spread to her brain.\u201d<\/p>\n “On the morning of October 23, 2006, David closed several of Janice’s bank accounts and appropriated the funds [totaling\u00a0 $197,402] for himself.\u00a0 The money in those accounts belonged to the trust.\u00a0 Janice died on October 24, 2006 at 7:50 a.m.\u201d<\/p>\n According to his trial testimony, \u201cDavid prepared the power of attorney to reclaim money in Janice’s accounts he thought belonged to Irene.\u00a0 Also, David wanted to secure jewelry that Janice wanted placed in her coffin.\u201d<\/p>\n The trial court \u201cfound the power of attorney drafted by David on October 22, 2006, was void and David wrongfully and in bad faith converted property belonging to the trust.\u00a0 According to the court, \u201cThe funds secured under the power of attorney were placed in accounts in the name of David and his wife.\u00a0 No funds taken by David on October 23, 2006, under the power of attorney were ever placed in Irene’s accounts.\u201d\u00a0 The probate court made no final determination as to the beneficiaries’ right to the funds.<\/p>\n The decision was affirmed in its entirety on appeal.\u00a0 Explained the court, \u201cthe probate court is a court of general jurisdiction (Probate Code \u00a7 800) with broad equitable powers.\u00a0 The probate court has jurisdiction to determine whether property is part of the decedent’s estate or living trust.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe probate court has general subject matter jurisdiction over the decedent’s property and as such, it is empowered to resolve competing claims over the title to and distribution of the decedent’s property.\u00a0 The probate court may apply general equitable principles in fashioning remedies and granting relief . . . The ultimate aim and purpose of administrative proceedings, including any special proceeding or contest to determine heirship, is to ascertain the persons entitled to share in the estate of the decedent and to decree distribution accordingly.\u201d<\/p>\n
![\"Deep](\"http:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/08\/Deep-jungle-on-Ko-Phi-Phi-Don1.jpg\" "\\"Fresno")
<\/a>Thus,\u201cProbate Code section 850 et seq. provides a mechanism for court determination of rights in property claimed to belong to a decedent or another person. The statutory scheme’s \u2018evident purpose\u2019 is to carry out the decedent’s intent and to prevent looting of estates.\u201d<\/p>\n