Blogs

array(2) { [0]=> object(WP_Post)#1676 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(231) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2014-10-06 21:45:50" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2014-10-06 21:45:50" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_title"]=> string(17) "Brendan J. Begley" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(16) "brendan-j-begley" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-07-24 16:42:28" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-07-24 16:42:28" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(44) "http://weinwp.dev/attorneys/brendan-j-begley" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(9) "attorneys" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } [1]=> object(WP_Post)#1675 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(235) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2014-10-06 21:45:50" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2014-10-06 21:45:50" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_title"]=> string(15) "Charles L. Post" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(14) "charles-l-post" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-09-11 20:55:08" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-09-11 20:55:08" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(42) "http://weinwp.dev/attorneys/charles-l-post" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(9) "attorneys" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } }

Attorneys

Lickter v. Lickter: Taking the Legs from Under Elder Abuse Standing

October 19 2011

The recent decision in Lickter v. Lickter took an unnecessarily narrow view of the standing required to bring an elder-abuse action. Although seemingly correct from a will-contest, trust-contest or probate perspective, the opinion in Lickter v. Lickter is premised upon an incorrect interpretation of California’s elder-abuse statutes. This precedential decision will seriously undermine the legislative goal of preventing elder abuse.

To view the article in its entirety, please click on the PDF link above.