What is a Fiduciary Litigator?

I am a civil trial attorney.  More specifically, I am a fiduciary litigator.  The problem is most people don't have a good working knowledge of what that means, since there are no popular television series about attorneys that handle litigation for individual trustees, corporate trustees, beneficiaries, and personal representatives, including trust and estate litigation, will contests, trust disputes, undue influence, capacity cases, claims of fiduciary breach, financial elder abuse cases, and guardianships and conservatorships.

Sometimes I tell people my job is to manage family dysfunction and I'm really just a very expensive form of therapy. 

In a Business Journal article about probate attorney Tom Rickhoff from San Antonio, author Sandra Lowe Sanchez quoted him as describing his job as, “An endlessly fascinating study of human motivation." 

Mr. Rickhoff may have summarized my job better than I ever have..... 

Family Fights: Top 5 Reasons Settlement Beats Litigation

Catdogfight.jpg

 
Jay Folberg recently wrote the four page article,
 "Mediating Family Property and Estate Conflicts"
in the ABA's December 2009 issue of Probate &
Property
.  I've distilled it into the top five reasons
why you want to heed his advice to mediate rather
than litigate:


1.       Expense.  Litigation is ridiculously expensive.  It takes
untold hours for partners, associates, and paralegals to wade through
discovery documents, take depositions, fight numerous pre-trial battles,
and properly prepare a case to proceed to a hearing or trial.  Don't get
me wrong - that's how I make my living and sometimes there is no other
choice, but it takes a tremendous amount of time and money to litigate.
Settlement at any stage of litigation stops the bleeding of attorneys'
fees. 

2.       Publicity.  Certain family members are good at starting a fight
without looking down the road to see where that path leads.  When the
mud between disgruntled family members starts to be tossed around, it
may feel good for the person that starts the fight to file their
salacious allegations, but those become public documents for curious
gawkers to review.  And the responsive documents filed could turn out to
be even more salacious and damaging.  Early mediation avoids battling in
a very public forum. 

3.       Non-Party Participation.   The plaintiff or petitioner files
the lawsuit or petition and the defendant or respondent answers.  But
with family disputes, there are often non-party players that are pulling
the strings behind the scenes that have great influence.   With
mediation, the non-parties may be allowed to participate in the process,
which allows them to voice their opinions and can be beneficial in
allowing all to feel they have had their "day in court" without actual
litigation.

4.       Creative Resolution.  Often times in litigation there is a
winner and a loser, without much gray area in between.  Mediations are
opportunities to toss around creative resolutions that the court may not
have the ability to use.  For example, Folberg notes a settlement in
which one brother settled for income producing real property, because
that met with his needs and interest, and the other brother received the
real property with the development potential, because that met with his
very different needs and interest. 

5.       Family Communication.  Conventional litigation, with the
parties speaking through their attorneys, does not allow for the
interaction that may be necessary to help frustrated family members
resolve their conflict.  The right mediator and the right attorneys can
be powerful in guiding conflicted families back toward some sort of
relationship.  Can it happen?  Absolutely.  Does it happen?  Not nearly
often enough.       

Recent Ruling: Elective Share

  From time to time we will publish recent local cases or legislative bills:

Wilson v. Wilson, 224 Or App 360, 197 P.3d 1141 (2008)

Background: This is a spousal elective share case. The conservator of the decedent’s wife filed a claim for her elective share. Before the court determined whether or not to grant the elective share, the wife died.

 

Holding: The elective share is personal to the surviving spouse and the right to it extinguishes upon the death of the surviving spouse.

 

Comment: This past legislative session, the Oregon Legislature amended the surviving spouse elective share statute. A copy of the statute is available here

Recent Ruling: Constructive Trust & Life Insurance

From time to time we will publish recent local cases or legislative bills:

Tupper v. Roan, 227 Or App 391, -- P.3d – (2009)

Background: As part of a divorce decree, the decedent promised to obtain a life insurance policy for the benefit of his wife as trustee for his child. Decedent never did this. Instead, he obtained a life insurance policy naming his girlfriend as the beneficiary. The ex-wife sued the girlfriend asking the court to impose a constructive trust on the portion of life insurance ($100,000 of the $600,000) that decedent promised to obtain.

Holding: In order to obtain constructive trust over the life insurance policy, the ex-wife must prove that the decedent gave the beneficiary property that originally belonged to the children and that the beneficiary knew or should have known of the wrongfulness of the decedent’s actions. The ex-wife must show the beneficiary is unjustly enriched. The fact that the divorce decree included a provision that stated the ex-wife would have constructive trust of any life insurance policy if he breached his obligation was unenforceable against the girlfriend because she was not a party to that agreement.

Note:  If not for the fact that the decedent was indeed deceased, his ex-wife would have killed him.

Recent Ruling: Personal Representative Compensation

From time to time, we will publish blurbs on recent local court opinions and state legislation:

Brown v. Hackney, -- P.3d --, 2009 WL 1394832 (Or App 2009)

Background: Brother of the decedent, a beneficiary through intestate (without a will) succession, challenged the payment of the personal representative from funds acquired through the settlement of a wrongful death action initiated by the personal representative.

 

Holding: The personal representative may be compensated based on the proceeds of a wrongful death settlement. ORS 116.173 bases personal representative compensation on the “whole estate” which is greater than the intestacy “estate.” The decedent’s “whole estate” is “comprised of all property both within the jurisdiction of the probate court as well as property outside the jurisdiction of the probate court.”

 

Comment:  This fight was over an amount of $5,200.  $5,200!  Really!?!  Can't we negotiate matters like grownups, instead of taking them up to the court of appeals? 

Recent Ruling: Will Contest

From time to time, we will publish blurbs on recent local court opinions and state legislation: 

Harris v. Jourdan, 218 Or App 470, 180 P.3d 119 (2008)

Background: Will contest involving a decedent that executed multiple wills. Each will was a drastic departure from the previous will. One beneficiary of a previous will challenged the probate of the most recent will based on undue influence. Will proponent claimed that beneficiary of prior will did not have standing to challenge the will because she, in fact, had procured the previous will through undue influence.

 

Holding: Beneficiary of prior will is not required to demonstrate that prior will could survive a will contest in order to have standing to contest the will that is currently in probate.

 

 

Top Four Traits for Your Fiduciary Litigator

Is your family fighting over who should or should not get dearly departed Dad’s property? Are you fairly certain a trustee is lining his own pockets, rather than aiding the beneficiaries? Did a caretaker unduly influence your ailing mother so he inherited the vast estate? Then you need to talk with a fiduciary litigator: You need someone on your side that can walk you through the legal and emotional challenges of fiduciary litigation. You need someone that possesses these traits:

1.       Communication Skills. 

Litigation is stressful. Litigation involving other family members or family money is especially stressful. If you find an attorney that primarily works with corporate clients, he may lack the ability to communicate with you about the many steps involved with litigation, having become too comfortable with a standard business cost-benefit analysis of litigation. For example, if litigation is unfamiliar to you, you will need to hear the same advice repeatedly, so you need someone to communicate clearly – and patiently.

 

2.       Empathy.

Venting is an important part of the grief process, as well as the litigation process, as can be ranting, crying, or beating your head against the wall in frustration. If you find your attorney only wants to discuss the law, then you need a different attorney. The law is applied to the facts, and to know the facts, the attorney must know you. And to know you is to listen to you and empathize.   Fiduciary litigation creates more than an attorney-client relationship; it bonds you together, so choose someone with whom you connect.

 

 

3.       Strong Legal Team.

Certainly you want your fiduciary litigator to know the law, but the universe of law encompassing fiduciary litigation can be large. There may be good solo practitioners out there that handle fiduciary litigation, but more often than not there can be complex real estate, tax, or other legal issues intertwined with the trust or estate dispute that requires the fiduciary litigator to reach out to those who specialize in those areas. The best solution is to locate a fiduciary litigator that has a firm with other attorneys that can collectively provide their expertise for such situations. This is particularly true when the vast majority of cases settle short of conventional trial, so the involvement of tax law specialists on complicated settlements is often needed.

 

4.        Confidence.

To effectively persuade a judge or jury, one needs to be confident. But there is indeed a fine line between being a confident attorney and a/an [insert your favorite expletive here]. Sadly, those that gleefully leap over that line are what give trial attorneys a bad name. But the confidence of which I speak is not limited to the courtroom. A good fiduciary litigator needs to have the confidence to be able to tell her client the weaknesses or risks with the case, as well as the potential for recovery. It takes confidence to be honest with the client.

 

This is a short checklist, but it covers the important points. Simply put, spend some time to interview your fiduciary litigator, because you do not want to settle for the least expensive attorney or the one that you heard was a “bulldog.” You want one that meets your needs and makes a real and personal connection with you. Such attorneys do exist.