The question presented in this case is one of first impression:
Assuming fraudulent intent, can the Uniform Voidable Transactions
2
Act (Civ. Code, § 3439 et seq., formerly known as the Uniform
Fraudulent Transfer Act, or UFTA)1 apply to a premarital agreement in
which the prospective spouses agree that upon marriage each spouse’s
earnings, income, and other property acquir

More...   $0 (02-14-2019 - TX)

More...   $0 (02-05-2019 - KS)

This appeal arises out of a dispute between six siblings over the interpretation of
the Trolan Family Trust (the trust), created by their parents in 1974. Upon the death of
their mother in 2015, the siblings became cotrustees of the trust, with the power to act by
majority vote. Five of the siblings, Appellants in this matter, agreed to maintain the
assets in trust, hoping they wou

More...   $0 (01-28-2019 - IN)

We have seen this case before. In 2016, we affirmed the trial court’s
judgment ordering Lu Tuan Nguyen to return funds to the Conservatorship of the Person
2
and Estate of Joseph E. Ribal. On remand, the trial court awarded attorney fees incurred
in enforcing the underlying judgment to Linda Rogers, the conservator, of $43,507.50.
Nguyen argues that he has satisfied the underl

Family Code section 852, subdivision (a)1 (section 852(a))
provides that a “transmutation,” or an interspousal transaction
changing the character of community or separate property, “is not
valid unless made in writing by an express declaration” by the
adversely affected spouse. (Italics added.) In Estate of
MacDonald (1990) 51 Cal.3d 262 (MacDonald), our Supreme
Court held

More...   $0 (01-14-2019 - TX)

This case involves a procedure by which an insurance company, as the entity
controlling the litigation and incurring the risk of loss, is a de facto party under Probate
Code sections 550 through 555 in “an action to establish [a] decedent’s liability for which
2
the decedent was protected by insurance” (Prob. Code, § 550),
1 and thus also is a party
under Code of Civil Pro

Appellant Joan Mauri Barefoot appeals following the trial court’s decision to
dismiss her petition under Probate Code section 172001
to, among other things, set aside
the 17th through 24th amendments and declare effective the 16th amendment to the
Maynord 1986 Family Trust (Trust). The trial court dismissed the petition on standing
grounds. For the reasons set forth below, we a

After an incident with sheriff’s deputies, Brian Pickett died,
leaving his partner, two biological children, and his partner’s
child, A.G., whom Brian had raised and held out as his own child.
In the subsequent wrongful death action, the trial court held that
A.G. lacked standing to sue, and entered judgment against him.
With apologies to Sigmund Freud, biology is not destiny.

Probate Code section 16440, subdivision (b) (16440(b)) provides that if a
“trustee has acted reasonably and in good faith under the circumstances as known to the
trustee,” a court has discretion to excuse him or her from liability for a breach of trust if it
would be equitable to do so.
1
(Italics added.) Acting under this express authority, the
trial court denied a petiti

Mobile, AL - Michael Devane Overton Sentenced Following Guilty Plea to a Federal Firearm Charge

Michael Devane Ove

Oklahoma Attorney Mutual Insurance Company v. Christopher Mansfield, David A. Cox, Elizabeth Fox, Gayle Boyle, Sharon C. Hart, Kathryn R. Stewart, Jim McGough, and Catherine Welsh seeking a declaratory judgment determining a real and justiciable controversy among the parties respecting their rights and obligations under a certain insurance contract.

Mansfield was an attorney who practiced

Following summary judgment against plaintiffs Sara and
Guy Hart in this wrongful foreclosure action, defendant
Nationstar Mortgage LLC obtained its attorney’s fees as
prevailing party, based on a clause in the deed of trust. On
appeal from the fee award, the Harts contend the clause in
question is not an attorney’s fees provision. We agree and
reverse.
FACTUAL AND PROCE

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and
8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception
of Parts II.A–II.B and Part II.D.

Plaintiff and appellant Melody Chacker (plaintiff)
refinanced a loan on her home and then failed to make required
loan payments, which triggered non-judicial foreclosure
proceedings. Plaintiff sued to stop the