{"id":392,"date":"2010-11-08T23:31:53","date_gmt":"2010-11-09T06:31:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fiduciarydutiesblog.com\/?p=392"},"modified":"2010-11-08T23:31:53","modified_gmt":"2010-11-09T06:31:53","slug":"lickter-v-lickter-no-standing-to-sue-for-elder-abuse-after-distribution-made-to-trust-beneficiary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/?p=392","title":{"rendered":"Lickter v. Lickter – No Standing to Sue for Elder Abuse After Distribution Made to Trust Beneficiary"},"content":{"rendered":"

The recent decision in Lickter v. Lickter<\/strong><\/a> (Oct. 27, 2010) — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2010 WL 4231300 highlights of three important points.\u00a0 First, a trust beneficiary<\/a> does not have standing to pursue a claim on behalf of the trust after the beneficiary has received his or her distribution pursuant to the trust.\u00a0 This may seem like a common-sense answer, but it took a published appellate decision to affirm the point.<\/p>\n

Second, draftspersons should be careful in how they handle pour over provisions in wills.\u00a0 It is common to couple an estate planning trust with a pour over will.\u00a0 By such standard estate planning documentation, the pour over will transfers any assets into the trust that were not already titled in the name of the trust at the time of the trustor\u2019s death.<\/p>\n

Yet, this can lead to an awkward circumstance if the asset consists of a claim for personal injury to the trustor, such as wrongful death or elder abuse<\/a>.\u00a0 Depending on how the pour over will was drafted, such claim may pass to the trust, to be prosecuted in the name of the trustee for benefit of the trust and its beneficiaries.\u00a0 Draftspersons may wish to consider modifying their pour over wills to provide that such claims for personal injury are the property of one or more named persons, rather than property of the trust.<\/p>\n

Third, this case emphasizes the importance of making pecuniary bequests to persons whom the trustor wants to preclude from attacking the trust.\u00a0 If the trustor makes a gift of $0.00 a potential beneficiary, then the beneficiary has no reason not to attack the trust.\u00a0 If the beneficiary loses, he still gets nothing; if he wins, then he gets something under the trust.<\/p>\n

In this case, the beneficiaries who wanted to launch a challenge received specific bequests, which requests were distributed to them by the trustee.\u00a0 By such distribution, the trustee prevented an attack on the trust.<\/p>\n

\"Mercat<\/a><\/p>\n

Here\u2019s how the court addressed the matter.\u00a0 \u201cThe underlying facts are largely irrelevant. For our purposes, it is sufficient to say that Lois died in August 2007 at the age of 91, leaving property in a trust, of which Robert became the trustee. The terms of the trust provided that upon Lois’s death, $10,000 each would be distributed to plaintiffs and the entire residue of the trust would then be distributed to Robert.\u00a0 If Robert predeceased Lois, the residue was to be distributed to Maggie and Kate.\u00a0 If Maggie and Kate also predeceased Lois, the residue was to be distributed to their children or, if none, to Lois’s living children by right of representation.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cPlaintiffs Joshua and Jezra Lickter sued their father (Robert Lickter), their half-sisters (Maggie and Kate Lickter), and their half-sisters’ mother (Mary McClain) for elder abuse and other related causes of action that had belonged to their grandmother (Robert’s mother), Lois Lickter, when she died.\u00a0 Plaintiffs claimed they had standing to commence and maintain the action under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.3(d)<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Explained the court, \u201cThe primary issue in this case is who is entitled to commence and\/or maintain an elder abuse action after the elder who was allegedly abused has died . . . As we will explain, just because plaintiffs were beneficiaries of Lois’s trust did not make them \u2018interested persons\u2019 for purposes of pursuing this elder abuse action under subdivision (d) of Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.3 . . . Plaintiffs were former beneficiaries of Lois’s trust, as they already had been paid the amounts they were owed under the trust. Thus, plaintiffs had no such interest in this elder abuse action.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bravo for a pithy and direct analysis.\u00a0 \u201cBecause Robert was Lois’s only surviving child, and because neither Maggie nor Kate had children, the residue of Lois’s trust would be distributed to plaintiffs under the terms of the trust if Robert, Maggie, and Kate all were deemed to have died before Lois.\u201d<\/p>\n

Here is the heart of the issue.\u00a0 \u201cIt has long been clear under California probate law that a person who can claim the title of \u2018heir\u2019 is not necessarily an \u2018interested person\u2019 for purposes of instituting or participating in a particular proceeding in a probate case.\u00a0 The question, rather, is whether the person \u2013 whether an heir, devisee, beneficiary, or other person \u2013 has an interest of some sort that may be impaired, defeated, or benefited by the proceeding at issue<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Now shines the beauty of the specific bequests to the beneficiaries who wanted to institute the action.\u00a0 \u201cHere, when the trial court granted summary judgment, plaintiffs had no right in or claim to Lois’s trust estate by virtue of their status as former beneficiaries of Lois’s trust because all of the interest they had in Lois’s trust had been satisfied when they were each paid the $10,000 Lois left each of them<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThus, they were no longer beneficiaries of the trust, let alone beneficiaries with \u2018a property right in or claim against the trust estate which could be affected by the\u2019 elder abuse action. For this reason, the trial court did not err in concluding that they did not have standing as \u2018interested persons\u2019 under subdivision (d)(1)(C) of Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.3 in their role as beneficiaries of Lois’s trust.\u201d<\/p>\n

To drive the point home, the court further held that, \u201cIn other words, contrary to plaintiffs’ assertions, it is not true that Robert’s payment of the $10,000 each plaintiff was owed from the trust terminated their standing to pursue this action as beneficiaries of Lois’s trust. The fact is that plaintiffs’ status as beneficiaries of Lois’s trust never gave them standing to pursue this action because the beneficial interest they had in the trust estate was not one that could have been \u2018affected by\u2019 this action.\u201d<\/p>\n

Hat\u2019s off to a clear, concise, and absolutely accurate decision<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Lickter v. Lickter<\/strong> (Oct. 27, 2010) — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2010 WL 4231300<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The recent decision in Lickter v. Lickter (Oct. 27, 2010) — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2010 WL 4231300 highlights of three important points.\u00a0 First, a trust beneficiary does not have standing to pursue a claim on behalf of the trust after the beneficiary has received his or her distribution pursuant to the trust.\u00a0 This may seem like […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-392","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-case-law","category-trusts-and-estates"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/392"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=392"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/392\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=392"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=392"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=392"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}