Probate Litigation Attorneys
“Keep in mind – beneficiaries are like cats and they will bite you for no good reason.” Serving as the trustee of a trust can be challenging because a trustee’s administrative responsibilities are, at times, layered with complicated family or beneficiary dynamics. While there is no way to guarantee a problem-free administration or termination of trust, Ohio law provides a method to expedite the process to complete distribution while providing protections for the trustee against future claims of the beneficiaries.
Adam M. Fried recently presented at The Marvin R. Pliskin Advanced Probate and Estate Planning Seminar, sponsored by the Ohio State Bar Association's Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Section. More than 250 attorneys from across the state of Ohio attended the full-day Continuing Legal Education course.
Paul Shugar will be presenting "Don't Text and Unduly Influence: An Overview of How to Use Electronic Discovery in Probate Litigation" at the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association's Estate Planning, Probate & Trust Law Section Meeting and CLE, held on Tuesday, May 15, 2018.
Adam M. Fried and Franklin C. Malemud have been invited to participate on a panel for an upcoming CLE webinar hosted by Strafford. Entitled "Trust and Probate Challenges: Minimizing and Litigating Claims of Undue Influence, Fraud, Capacity and Mistakes," this webinar will be held on Thursday, January 18th from 1 pm-2:30 pm EST. The format will offer an interactive Q&A session as well.
Trustees Under Attack Through the Erosion of the Attorney Client Privilege: Recent Case Law Development and the Fiduciary Exception to the Attorney Client Privilege
Ohio State Bar Association "Quick Webcast" Program
December 13, 1:00 PM EST
1.0 CLE hour / 1.0 Professional Conduct hour
The attorney client relationship between trustees, executors and their attorneys can be complicated. The relationship is more complex when disputes develop and claims are raised against the fiduciary. From the pitfalls of conflicts of interests as identified in Cincinnati Bar Association v. Robertson to the question as to whom the attorney owes a duty when representing a fiduciary who, in turn, owes duties to the beneficiaries will be discussed in this one-hour program.
Reminger Co., LPA is proud to have served as a sponsor for the Marvin R. Pliskin Advanced Probate and Estate Planning Seminar, held in conjunction with the Ohio State Bar Association in Columbus, Ohio on Friday, September 15, 2017.
Can a disinherited person force the production of information necessary to substantiate the efforts required to pursue a challenge to a Will, beneficiary designation, or Trust?
Isolation and manipulation of a loved one by those who are intent on deriving benefits from an estate are frequent realities in estate litigation cases. Undue influence, the process by which a person’s mind is subjugated so that the decision-making is actually that of the perpetrator, is almost always done behind closed doors. The byproduct of isolation and conduct perpetrated in the dark is lack of information. Family members are left with only questions and no answers.
The loss of a loved one is a devastating event, and can be a chaotic and confusing time for those left mourning. The making of phone calls to family and friends, the preparation of funeral arrangements, and the handling of other post-death matters must be addressed. But what do family members do when they find out that something suspicious has happened with their loved one’s last will and testament?
Ten years after the first enactment of the Ohio Trust Code, in Zook, et al. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association, et al., 10th Dist. No. 15AP-751, 2017-Ohio-838, the Tenth District Ohio Court of Appeals gave insight into protections under the Ohio Trust Code afforded trustees against beneficiary claims and a provided a roadmap for a beneficiary to challenge such protection.
Following up on the recent blog post on basic principles of trust reporting, the Fifth District Court of Appeals released a timely analysis involving a trustee’s failure to account and an award of attorney fees against the trustee for their breach of duty in McHenry v. McHenry, (5th Dist.), 2017-Ohio 1534. The decision, originating out of the Stark County Probate Court is significant for two reasons: (1) it provides a thorough analysis of a trustee’s duty to account even in the face of trust language relieving the trustee of his duty to account; and (2) the court awarded attorney fees in excess of the value of the compensatory damages, pursuant to its authority under R.C. 5810.04.