underwood-real-estate-commission-probate-300x300Probate proceedings can often be complex, especially when it comes to the sale of property within an estate. In California, the rules governing commissions for agents, brokers, and auctioneers involved in probate sales are outlined in California Probate Code. 

Probate commissions are fees paid to executors and administrators for their services in managing and distributing an estate. However, what constitutes “normal” probate commissions can vary widely and is often misunderstood. 

Probate commissions, also known as executor fees or personal representative fees, compensate individuals responsible for overseeing the probate process. These individuals, typically named in the deceased’s will or appointed by the court if there’s no will, handle tasks such as gathering assets, paying debts, filing tax returns, and distributing property to beneficiaries.

underwood-primer-after-acquired-title-doctrine-300x300When it comes to real estate transactions, ensuring a clean and clear title is essential. However, what happens if a property is sold without a perfect title, only for the seller to acquire the missing rights or interests later? This scenario is where the After Acquired Title Doctrine comes into play. In this blog, we’ll discuss what this doctrine entails, its implications for buyers and sellers, and how it impacts real estate transactions.

What is the “After Acquired Title Doctrine”?

The After Acquired Title Doctrine is a legal principle that addresses situations where a seller transfers property without having complete ownership or rights to the property at the time of sale. 

underwood-costs-of-partition-action-300x300In every lawsuit, one of the biggest consideration is the cost. Frequently, clients are very eager to understand the amount that they will be required to pay to have their case resolved. After all, most people do not have a pot of money set aside for lawsuits, and are forced to eat into their savings to pay for an attorney to help with their legal problems. Even when attorneys’ fees are available for reimbursement, as they are in a partition action, the question of costs is always a significant question. 

While an attorney can never predict the exact amount down to the dollar that a case will cost, they can and should share the factors that could influence the amount that the client may ultimately have to pay to get the case resolved. For example, in a partition action, there are common issues that arise that could change the cost of the matter. That said, a relatively vanilla partition action generally costs more or less between $10,000 to $30,000.  

Factors that Affect a Partition Action

underwood-distributions-proceeds-partition-action-300x300Before the owners receive the proceeds from a partition sale, costs and expenses related to the partition action must be paid. Code of Civil Procedure section 873.820 sets forth the order that these expenses and costs must paid before the owners receive their proportional interest in the remaining proceeds. Specifically, it states that the proceeds must be distributed in this order:

  1. Payment of the expenses related to the sale
  2. Payment of the costs arising out of the partition

underwood-guide-marketable-record-title-act-300x300The Marketable Record Title act provides a statutory time limit to eliminate certain liens. Specifically, the purpose is to enhance the marketability of property by fixing an expiration date for certain interests, which are generally ancient mortgages, deeds of trust, unexercised options, powers of termination, unperformed contracts for the sale of real property, dormant mineral intersts, and abandoned easements, while also providing a procedure for allowing the interests to be preserved. In other words, the Act helps to simplify and facilitate real property transactions. In this blog, we’ll delve into what the Marketable Record Title Act entails, its significance, and how it impacts property owners.

What is the Marketable Record Title Act (MRTA)?

The Marketable Record Title Act is a piece of legislation adopted by many states in the United States with the aim of clarifying and simplifying real property titles. Its primary objective is to extinguish certain old and dormant interests in real estate, thereby providing buyers with a more secure and marketable title. (see Robin v. Crowell (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 727.) 

underwood-co-owner-take-rent-property-300x300Often, the question of distributing rent earned on a co-owned property arises in the context of cotenants. Cotenants have equal rights to possess their property with their fellow cotenants. This means that no one cotenant can exclude another from the property. One cotenant can, however, assign their right of possession to a third party. 

This can happen when a cotenant rents out part of the property to a tenant. In this situation, the other cotenants still have the right to possess the property, but they do not have a right to exclude the tenant. The tenant is also prohibited from excluding the other cotenants from occupying the property. 

How can a cotenant lease property they co-own?

Underwood-Blog-Image-Temp-Apr-24-300x300Probate Code section 859 protects certain individuals whose property or money is taken, concealed, or disposed of by another. Section 859 does this by imposing hefty penalties on anyone who wrongfully takes or conceals property belonging to certain groups. 

Specifically, the statute provides:

“If a court finds that a person has in bad faith wrongfully taken, concealed, or disposed of property belonging to a conservatee, a minor, an elder, a dependent adult, a trust, or the estate of a decedent, or has taken, concealed, or disposed of the property by the use of undue influence in bad faith or through the commission of elder or dependent adult financial abuse . . . the person shall be liable for twice the value of the property recovered by an action under this part.” (Prob. Code § 859 (emphasis added).)

underwood-trustees-beneficiaries-300x300A trust is a legal device that is commonly used in estate planning. A trust represents “a collection of assets and liabilities” that can be held and transferred by an individual to another individual, the “beneficiary.” (Portico Mgmt. Grp., LLC v. Harrison (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 464, 473.) When the trustee, the person responsible for managing and distributing the trust’s assets, has a personal interest in those assets, certain problems can arise. This is because the trustee is bound by several legal duties designed to safeguard the interests of the beneficiaries. Therefore, if a trustee is also a beneficiary, they must make sure that they do not unduly favor themselves at the expense of the other beneficiaries. 

What is a trustee?

A person who creates a trust, the “settlor,” names a “trustee” who holds legal title to the property held in the trust for the benefit of one or more persons, the “beneficiaries.” (Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486, 521.) The settlor can create a voluntary or express trust through a formal agreement where the settlor details his intentions regarding the trustee and beneficiaries. A property owner can designate himself as a trustee, creating an express trust holding his property. (Probate Code § 15200(a).) The owner can also designate a third party as a trustee. A trust can be created during the settlor’s life, or, it can be created by a will where it becomes effective upon the settlor’s death.  

underwood-guide-statutory-settlement-offers-300x300California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 encourages parties involved in legal disputes to settle prior to trial. According to this law, either party can present a written settlement offer to the other party up to ten days before the trial begins. (CCP § 998(b).) 

If the plaintiff declines a timely offer from the defendant and subsequently receives a judgment at trial that isn’t more favorable than the defendant’s offer, the plaintiff must “pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.” (CCP § 998(c)(1).) Moreover, in many civil cases, the court may also require the plaintiff to pay a reasonable amount of the defendant’s expert witness expenses incurred after the offer was presented.  

Likewise, if the defendant rejects the plaintiff’s timely offer and later gets a judgment at trial that isn’t more advantageous than what the plaintiff offered, the court has the authority to require the defendant to pay the plaintiff a reasonable portion of their costs related to expert witnesses incurred after the offer was made. (CCP § 998(d).) 

Contact Information