For 15 years, the executors of Michael Jackson’s estate have been managing estate assets and operating his businesses. The executors petitioned the probate court to approve a transaction in which the estate would transfer some assets to a joint venture with a third party, in
A trust beneficiary filed and litigated a trust contest, despite multiple warnings that the contest was barred by Probate Code section 16061.7’s 120-day deadline and that if the trust beneficiary continued to press the contest, her interest in the trust would be invalidated under the
The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, has affirmed a probate court ruling in favor of GMSR’s clients in a contest over interpretation of a hand-written will. The testator was not a lawyer and wrote his will informally. He sometimes drew arrows to
The probate court had appointed GMSRs’ clients – professional fiduciaries – as special administrators to manage decedent’s businesses after her death. When the special administrators examined the companies’ finances, they discovered evidence suggesting that appellant had engaged in mismanagement and fraud. They locked him out
Relying on Beckwith v. Dahl (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1039, plaintiffs sued their uncle, GMSR’s client, in civil court for intentionally interfering with their expectation of inheritance. They claimed their uncle intentionally exerted undue influence over his parents and interfered with his mother’s desires to leave
Four people claimed that Michael Jackson promised them 15% of The Michael Jackson Company in a middle-of-the-night meeting in 2006. After a long bench trial, the probate court rejected those claims on multiple grounds and confirmed that Jackson wholly owned the company.
In re Estate of Duke (2015) 61 Cal.4th 871 (California Supreme Court). From time immemorial, courts throughout the United States have been powerless to correct drafting mistakes in wills no matter how clearly the evidence established the testator’s actual intent. Courts could use the doctrine
Novak v. Fay (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 329 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five) [published]. GMSR’s client, an attorney, agreed to represent a husband under a contingent-fee arrangement in a suit against the estate of his late wife on a pretermitted-heir theory. In
Crowe v. Tweten (2014) 2014 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 9294 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two) [unpublished]. An elderly couple devised an estate plan with the assistance of counsel. They repeatedly stated that their intent was for the surviving spouse to inherit everything
Wells Fargo Bank v. D. Sprott (2012) 2012 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 7824 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One) [unpublished]. In the probate court, GMSR’s client—Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., acting as trustee of a testamentary trust—obtained an order instructing it how to implement
Whether on appeal, assisting trial counsel, or advising government officials contemplating legislative action, GMSR provides unique insight into the complex laws that impact public entities.
Where coverage may exist, GMSR represents insureds on appeal effectively and efficiently. Where it does not, the firm protects insurers’ right to deny claims.
GMSR offers corporate clients objective assessments on appeal, based on a deep understanding of the limitations and opportunities of appellate review.
The firm’s lawyers are team players, collaborating with trial counsel at any level from legal strategy to writing or editing trial court motions and appellate briefs.
GMSR vigorously advocates the rights of individual plaintiffs and defendants, in both state and federal appellate courts.
As part of GMSR’s long-standing commitment to social justice and equality, GMSR provides pro bono appellate services to individuals and to community organizations on issues of concern.
We welcome your inquiry. However, sending us an email does not create an attorney-client relationship. For that reason, you should not send us any kind of confidential information. Until we have agreed to represent you, we cannot be obligated to keep it confidential.