San Diego Dispute Prompts California Supreme Court Opinion Easing Trust Modification Rules
February 23, 2024
The San Diego Union-Tribune
In this recent article from The San Diego Union-Tribune, Downey Brand partner Sean McKissick, who specializes in trust and estate disputes, comments on a La Jolla resident’s posthumous modifications to her trust of roughly $4 million, which disinherited her niece and were deemed valid by the California Supreme Court. The article discusses the ruling and the precedent it sets, which is seen as a positive step in simplifying the process for individuals to adjust trusts according to their wishes after death.
Earlier this month, the California Supreme Court ruled against the niece, Brianna McKee Haggerty, finding that Bertsch’s later amendments that disinherited Haggerty were valid. The opinion, which resolved differing rulings in lower courts, established a new precedent that broadens the way California residents can modify trusts without as much worry that legal red tape will hinder their wishes from being carried out after death.
“I think it’s a significant win for common sense,” said attorney Sean McKissick, who specializes in trust and estate disputes as partner at the firm Downey Brand and who was not involved with the litigation. “It makes it simpler, easier for you to change your trust, and there’s a better chance it ends up what you want it to be.”
Both Roland Achtel, a San Diego-based trusts and estates attorney at Higgs Fletcher & Mack who argued the case in front of the state Supreme Court, and Sean McKissick responded to the argument that easing the restrictions on trust modifications would make it easier for “an unscrupulous caretaker or counsel … to usurp an elder’s assets.”
Achtel and McKissick, the attorney who specializes in trust and estate disputes, acknowledged that concern, but said that undue influence and manipulation have always been concerns even under the old interpretation of the law. Achtel said trusts and estates attorneys already have the means to fight forgeries and undue influence.
“There are all kinds of tools we use to attack changes in wills, trusts and other documents when there is an issue with potential manipulation,” Achtel said. “What we want is the flexibility to carry out the person’s true wishes.”
McKissick agreed.
“The potential for harm from this decision,” he said, “is nothing compared to the potential for good.”
Access the full article here.