News

Case Summaries

Elder Law

[02/05] Villano v. Waterman Convalescent Hosp., Inc.
In plaintiff's action against a convalescent hospital claiming she was admitted without her consent, judgment of the trial court is affirmed where, although a stipulated judgment is appealable, plaintiff cannot show that allegedly erroneous rulings were prejudicial.

[12/22] Massey v. Mercy Med. Center Redding
In plaintiff's negligence action against a nurse and the hospital that employed the nurse alleging that he sustained injury after falling from a walker because the nurse placed the plaintiff on the walker and left him unattended, judgment of the trial court is reversed in part where: 1) the question of nurse's alleged negligence for the fall poses a question of common knowledge, and therefore does not require expert opinion testimony; and 2) trial court's judgment that denied plaintiff's attempt to amend his complaint to add causes of action for battery, fraud and elder abuse is affirmed.

[12/21] Grace Healthcare of Benton v. US Dept. of Health & Hum. Servs.
In a petition for review of a civil monetary penalty imposed by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services on petitioner nursing home for an "immediate jeopardy" violation of 42 C.F.R. section 483.13(c), which required nursing homes to thoroughly investigate all allegations of resident neglect or abuse, including injuries of unknown sources, the petition is granted where the Secretary's finding of the likely harm necessary to warrant an immediate-jeopardy-level finding was based on pure speculation and not supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record as a whole.

[12/01] Yarick v. Pacificare of California
In plaintiff-estate's suit against defendant health care providers and health care benefits providers alleging that the events resulting in decedent's death happened because of the financial pressures and incentive that arose from the care providers' contracts with the defendants, trial court's order sustaining defendants' demurrer is affirmed as: 1) federal law expressly preempts applications of state laws where standards for Medicare Advantage plans are established pursuant to the Medicare law; and 2) to the extent the plaintiff seeks to allege causes of action based on state common law concepts of duty independent of the Health and Safety Code provisions cited, those common law causes of action are preempted.

[11/30] Holbert v. Fremont Inv. & Loan
In plaintiff's suit against a financial lender, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) defendant was not required to comply with the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA), which applies when the finance charges imposed on a loan exceed a certain threshold; 2) two charges imposed on plaintiff, one to pay off a preexisting debt to another lender and another to satisfy a prepayment penalty on a prior home loan, were not finance charges within the meaning of HOEPA; 3) plaintiff has not established a claim against defendant for unfair business practices; and 4) while plaintiff may have a viable claim against her loan broker for financial elder abuse based on various misrepresentations made during the loan process, she failed to link that claim to defendant, who is as much a victim of the broker's misrepresentations as plaintiff.

[10/29] People v. Medlin
An order finding defendants-nurses factually innocent of felony charges of dependent adult abuse likely to produce great bodily harm or death and directing destruction of their records is reversed as, notwithstanding their acquittals, the evidence provided reasonable cause to believe that respondents committed the offense of which they were charged.

[09/30] Pryor v. Pryor
Trial court's order dismissing plaintiff's petition to annul the marriage of her late father, comedian Richard Pryor, and her stepmother is affirmed as she lacks standing to petition to annul the marriage.

[08/13] Wood v. Santa Monica Escrow Co.
Trial court judgment denying plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees is affirmed where the trial and appeal are a single proceeding and defendant was still the overall prevailing party after plaintiff dismissed its suit against it, despite plaintiff's success on an appeal of the award of attorney's fees.

Read More

Family Law

[03/05] People v. Warwick
Conviction of defendant of child abuse and neglect and jury's true finding on the enhancement that she personally inflicted great bodily injury on her child is affirmed as, when she gave birth to her son in her bedroom and concealed the birth causing severe injuries, defendant inflicted great bodily injury on her child.

[03/05] Doe v. S. Carolina Dep't of Soc. Servs.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a minor child and her adoptive parents against defendant, an Adoption Specialist with the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS), alleging violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law claims against SCDSS under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) when a state involuntarily removes a child from her home, thereby taking the child into its custody and care, the state has taken an affirmative act to restrain the child's liberty, triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause and imposing "some responsibility for the child's safety and general well being"; 2) because it would not have been apparent to a reasonable social worker in defendant's position that her actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, she is entitled to qualified immunity; 3) prospective adoptive parents have no substantive due process right to the disclosure of a child's history of sexual abuse; and 4) district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the state law claims for gross negligence against SCDSS is vacated and remanded for consideration of the applicability of section 15-78-60(25).

[03/04] In re E.O.
Juvenile court's denial of a father's request for presumed father status is affirmed as the only provision of Family Code section 7611 that might possibly apply is subdivision (d) which states that a man is a presumed father if he "receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his natural child," and here, the father did not establish that he came within this or any of the categories set forth in Family Code section 7611.

[03/03] Mendoza v. Ramos
In a father's petition to modify custody and support orders of his four children, the court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) trial court's refusal to attribute income because the mother was receiving CalWORKs was proper; and 2) the father's rights were not violated as neither parties requested testimony.

[02/26] In Re Marriage of MacManus
In marital dissolution proceedings, trial court's order reallocating back child support to back spousal support is affirmed as, the order was not an abuse given the trial court's broad discretion to consider the "big picture" concerning the parties' assets and income available for support in light of the marriage standard of living.

[02/26] In re Marcos G.
In dependency proceedings, an order denying a father's 388 petition and terminating his parental rights is affirmed where: 1) although there was a failure to follow certain notice provisions, the error was not prejudicial; and 2) father's section 388 petition was not an abuse of discretion.

[02/23] Murray v. Lene
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging, inter alia, an unlawful seizure, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in part where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining state law claims; 2) plaintiff's conspiracy claim failed because the complaint failed to allege a "meeting of the minds" among the alleged conspirators; and 3) recklessness could be inferred from the omission of information from an affidavit only when the material omitted would have been clearly critical to the finding of probable cause.

[02/23] In re W.B.
Juvenile court's order removing a minor from his mother's custody and ordering him placed in a foster home, group home, relative home, county or private facility is affirmed as, because the ICWA excludes delinquencies from its notice requirements, any attempts by the State of California to expand ICWA's application to delinquencies is unauthorized under federal preemption doctrine.

Read More

Probate Trusts

[02/25] Conservatorship of John L.
In a petition to establish a conservatorship of a person pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed where: 1) the superior court did not violate the LPS Act when it excused the individual's production and proceeded without him in attendance at a hearing to establish a conservatorship of his person; and 2) the superior court did not violate his due process rights.

[02/25] Donahue v. Donahue
Trial court's order, charging a trust with some $5 million in past and ongoing attorney fees incurred on behalf of a former trustee in defending against the beneficiary's allegations of self-dealing and conflict of interest is reversed as it cannot be determined from the trial court's order whether the fee awards are consistent with applicable legal principles. Long-established principles of trust law impose a double-barreled reasonableness requirement where: 1) the fee award must be reasonable in amount and reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation; and 2) it also must be reasonable and appropriate for the benefit of the trust.

[02/11] Estate of Tolman
Denial of a granddaughter's petition to determine persons entitled to distribution from her grandmother's estate is affirmed as the exclusion of unmentioned heirs or relatives from the will's dispositions, or an intent to disinherit those who contest those dispositions, does not sufficiently express or manifest an intent to arrest the operation of the anti-lapse law following a legatee's death.

[01/29] Estate of Artall v. Comm'r. of Int'l. Rev.
In the taxpayer's appeal from the tax court's approval of the IRS Commissioner's disallowance of a "qualified family-owned business interest" estate tax deduction to the taxpayer estate, the tax court's order is affirmed where the "qualified family-owned business interest" deduction of 26 U.S.C. section 2057 is available for an estate's qualifying equity or ownership interests but not for debt interests such as loans receivable.

[01/22] Charles Schwab & Co. v. Debickero
In an interpleader action by a bank seeking to determine the ownership of an IRA account held by decedent, summary judgment for the named beneficiaries of the IRA is affirmed where: 1) the surviving spouse protections in ERISA did not apply to the IRA even though some of the funds originated from an ERISA-protected pension plan, and 2) the Internal Revenue Code also did not impose automatic surviving spouse rights on IRAs similar to those protections afforded under ERISA.

[01/15] Carroll v. Carroll
In an action seeking to remove a trustee of an irrevocable trust, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the judgment of the county court vacated as the county court at law had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought and the judgment it rendered was void because the Texas Property Code vests exclusive jurisdiction over the claims in the case in the district court.

[01/08] Suleman v. Sup. Ct.
A petition for a writ of mandate by plaintiff, commonly referred to in the media as the "Octomom", challenging the probate court's denial of her motion to dismiss a petition by an individual, a president of a nonprofit corporation, and the court's appointment of the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) to conduct an investigation of the family's finances is granted where: 1) the probate court erred by denying plaintiff's motion to dismiss the petition; 2) the individual seeking guardianship has no standing under Probate Code section 1510(a) as the petition seeking appointment of a guardian of the octopulets' estates should have been dismissed because he has neither pleaded ultimate facts demonstrating the plaintiff has engaged in any financial misconduct, nor alleged any other information warranting court investigation in the plaintiff's family's finances; and 3) the probate court's order for an investigation of the family's finances is vacated.

[12/11] Balian v. Balian
Probate court's order granting a declaratory relief petition brought by a trust beneficiary to determine that a proposed petition to modify an irrevocable trust is not a contest is affirmed as the proposed modification petition explicitly states that it is being pursued under section 15409 and as such, it does not violate a no contest clause.

Read More