Welcome to the Weintraub Tobin Resources Page

Browse below for news, legal insights, information on presentations and events, and other resources from the Weintraub Tobin legal team.


How to Get Rid of a Dead Body

California Trusts and Estates Quarterly

This article was first published in Volume 25, Issue 3, 2019 of the California Trusts and Estates Quarterly, reprinted by permission.

Those of us who watched AMC’s hit drama “Breaking Bad” may recall the scene in the pilot episode where Walt and Jesse set out to dissolve a dead body in hydrofluoric acid. Jesse neglects to take Walt’s (the chemistry teacher’s) advice to dissolve the body in a plastic container and instead uses a bathtub, only to have the acid melt through the dead body and the tub, and come crashing through the floor supporting the tub, and the floor below that. Here, there is some truth in fiction. Pursuant to Assembly Bill 967, signed by Governor Brown in 2017, the liquification of human remains will be permitted soon, at least for professionals and entities operating a licensed hydrolysis facility where such processes may be carried out. The new law becomes operative on July 1, 2020.

Popular culture and criminal activity aside, this article sets out to summarize the basics of disposing of human remains, covering issues such as who has control over the remains, which laws and documents govern such control, the transportation and disposition of remains, and the removal of remains after burial.

Read the full article here.

What Aretha Franklin’s Estate Teaches Us About the Pitfalls of Handwritten Wills

Typically, only those of us who are trusts and estates attorneys geek out over the fascinating problems that handwritten wills create. But when those wills were written by a music icon worth $80 million, suddenly this topic is intriguing to a much broader audience. Aretha Franklin died on August 31, 2018. Her family was confident that she died without a will, but on May 3, 2019, the personal representative of Franklin’s estate discovered three separate documents, each of which may constitute a valid handwritten (or in legal terms, “holographic”) will. Now, the previously uncontested estate has divided Franklin’s family and is likely headed to litigation. Below are a few common pitfalls of holographic wills that are issues in Franklin’s estate.

A Case Lesson in “What Not To Do” When Billing as a Conservator

Based on recent appellate cases, one of which is discussed below, the court’s scrutiny of conservators’ conduct and, specifically, private fiduciaries, is seemingly on the rise. Private fiduciaries acting as conservators should always remain focused on performing and charging only for those services that are consistent with the best interests of their conservatees. California case law continues to refine that understanding.

And You Are? Long Lost Relatives Need to Prove Up Their Entitlement to Inherit

Under California law, the laws of intestacy control who inherits when a person dies without having prepared a valid will or trust. These rules can be complicated particularly as remote or even unknown blood relatives may have a claim to assets of the decedent’s estate. However, these long lost relatives often must prove up their entitlement to inherit from the decedent’s estate.

Celebrity Trusts & Estates: Paul Walker Leaves His $25 Million Estate to His Teenage Daughter

By Trusts & Estates

It was recently revealed that the late Paul Walker left his entire estate—valued at approximately $25 million—to his 15-year-old daughter, Meadow.

As reported, Paul Walker named his father as the executor of his will and his mother, Cheryl, as the guardian of Meadow’s person and now-$25 million estate. Prior to his death, Meadow lived with her father but now lives in Hawaii with her mother, Rebecca Soteros. Already, this decision is causing people to wonder why Paul would name someone other than Meadow’s biological mother as Meadow’s guardian.

Trusts & Estates Case Alert: Another California Appellate District Adopts Anderson v. Hunt Reasoning in Assessing Capacity to Execute a Trust Instrument

The California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District issued a ruling Tuesday in Lintz v. Lintz, 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 27 (6th Dist. January 14, 2014) adopting the reasoning of the Second Appellate District regarding the standard for legal capacity to execute a trust instrument (as announced by the Second Appellate District in Anderson v. Hunt, 196 Cal. App. 4th 722 (2d Dist. 2011)).

In Lintz, the Court concluded that the probate court erred by applying the testamentary capacity standard (i.e., Probate Code section 6100.5) to the trusts and trust amendments in question instead of the “sliding-scale contractual standard” outlined in Probate Code sections 810 through 812. In this case, as the Court noted, the trust instruments were “unquestionably more complex than a will or codicil. They addressed community property concerns, provided for income distribution during the life of the surviving spouse, and provided for the creation of multiple trusts, one contemplating estate tax consequences, upon the death of the surviving spouse.”

Don’t Make the Grave Mistake of Killing Your Appeal from an Order of the Probate Court

In most California civil cases, a party generally must wait until a trial court issues a final judgment before he or she can get through the doors of the Court of Appeal. While there are a few exceptions, this rule (sometimes called the one-final-judgment rule) prevents litigants from complaining to the appellate court about every ruling in a given case in piecemeal fashion. Even when they receive an appealable judgment, parties to an appeal often find that getting a decision from the reviewing court takes endurance and patience; e.g., the time from the notice of appeal to the decision frequently takes over a year.