Video – Upcoming discussions that I am working on – David W. Tate, Esq. – September 12, 2025

Best to you, David Tate, Esq.

Please reach out on this topic or on other topics if you wish.

* * * *

Thank you for viewing and reading this discussion. Please do pass this blog and blog post and information to other people who would be interested as it is only through collaboration and sharing that great things and success are more quickly achieved. If you are interested in discussing anything that I have said in the discussion above or in either of my two blogs (see blog addresses below), or if you simply want to reach out or are seeking assistance, it is best to reach me by email at dave@tateattorney.com.

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

Trust, estate, probate, power of attorney, fiduciary, beneficiary, conservatorship, and elder and dependent adult abuse litigation and contentious administrations, undue influence, fraud and deceit, physical and mental health and challenging and contentious personalities and relationships.

Trust, estate and probate administrations and litigation involving special assets such as business ownership interests and operating businesses, asset co-ownership disputes, contentious governance, intellectual property assets, art and collectible assets, ongoing future contractual rights, buyouts and sales, M&A disputes, businesses divorces, and accountings.

Businesses and third party disputes and litigation – contract, licensing, co-business, royalty and other arrangements, unfair business practices, fraud and deceit, lack of good faith and fair dealing, buyouts and sales, mergers, acquisitions, ventures, etc.

Business co-ownership and internal governance disputes and litigation, business divorces, buyouts and sales, merger and acquisition disputes, family, closely held and professional businesses, accountings, and audits, D&O, boards, audit committees and investigations. Legal authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, diligence, compliance, liability, BJR, legal risk management, and resolution.

Real property and co-ownership disputes and litigation.

Trials.

Mediator and dispute and litigation resolution services.

Legal risk and uncertainty management processes – authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, governance, diligence, compliance, liability, and resolution.

Other and additional disputes, litigation and issues that fall within the above areas – court and trial evidence, persuasion, debate and fallacies, using AI assistance, IP, meetings, defamation, risk management processes, workplace, new laws, regulations and government actions – impact/legality, law and legal matters in the news, etc.

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation, or as or for my opinions and views on the subject matter.

Also note – sometimes I include links to or comments about materials from other organizations or people – if I do so, it is because I believe that the materials are worthwhile reading or viewing; however, that does not mean that I do not or that I might not have a different view about some or even all of the subject matter or materials, or that I necessarily agree with, or agree with everything about or relating to, that organization or person, or those materials or the subject matter.

Please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My blogs are:

http://tateattorney.com – business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. – previously at http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Prior blog: Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing only as an attorney in California.

California probate case holds that free room and board can be “remuneration” for the presumption of fraud or undue influence against a care custodian

By way of background, in relevant part California Probate Code sections 21380(a)(3) and (4) provide as follows (a full copy of section 21380 is provided at the end of this post):

“21380. Presumption of fraud or undue influence for certain enumerated transfers; burden of proof; costs and attorney’s fees

(a) A provision of an instrument making a donative transfer [e.g., such as a will, trust, transfer on death deed, etc.] to any of the following persons is presumed to be the product of fraud or undue influence:

* * * * *

(3) A care custodian of a transferor who is a dependent adult, but only if the instrument was executed during the period in which the care custodian provided services to the transferor, or within 90 days before or after that period.

(4) A care custodian who commenced a marriage, cohabitation, or domestic partnership with a transferor who is a dependent adult while providing services to that dependent adult, or within 90 days after those services were last provided to the dependent adult, if the donative transfer occurred, or the instrument was executed, less than six months after the marriage, cohabitation, or domestic partnership commenced.”

California Probate Code section 21362 defines the terms “Care custodian” and “health and social services” as follows:

“21362. “Care custodian” and “health and social services” defined

(a) “Care custodian” means a person who provides health or social services to a dependent adult, except that “care custodian” does not include a person who provided services without remuneration if the person had a personal relationship with the dependent adult (1) at least 90 days before providing those services, (2) at least six months before the dependent adult’s death, and (3) before the dependant adult was admitted to hospice care, if the dependent adult was admitted to hospice care. As used in this subdivision, “remuneration” does not include the donative transfer at issue under this chapter or the reimbursement of expenses.

(b) For the purposes of this section, “health and social services” means services provided to a dependent adult because of the person’s dependent condition, including, but not limited to, the administration of medicine, medical testing, wound care, assistance with hygiene, companionship, housekeeping, shopping, cooking, and assistance with finances.”

The case Robinson v. Gutierrez (December 26, 2023) 98 Cal. App. 5th 278 involved a situation in which the person who is alleged to have been a care custodian allegedly received free room and board for those services but received no direct payment or other other benefit. The Court was called upon in a case of first impression to determine whether free room and board in exchange for care services are “remuneration” for the purpose of Cal. Probate Code sections 21380 and 21362. The court held that “yes” they are.

The Court’s holding includes a many-page discussion about the legislative intent and also about the use of the word remuneration in other circumstances and in general. Thus, for example, as part of those discussions the Court stated:

“These definitions show that the terms “remuneration,” “pay,” and “compensation” can be interchangeable. As used in section 21362 “remuneration” refers to a form of compensation given in exchange for the provision of care services. The dictionary sources indicate that “remuneration” refers to compensation in the form of money or some other thing of equivalent value. Thus, on its face, the term includes compensation in the form of room and board or other noncash benefits in exchange for the provision of care services.”

Similarly, the Court also stated:

“But because “remuneration” as used in section 21362 can reasonably be read to encompass money, other types of benefits, or both, we turn to the statute’s legislative history and purposes to discern legislative intent. This review further convinces us that the Legislature in this instance intended that remuneration would include room and board given in exchange for care and social services.”

Why is Robinson v. Gutierrez important? The use of fraud and undue influence to obtain a person’s assets upon the person’s death are rampant. And these are challenging cases to bring because a primary witness, the decedent whose assets are at issue, is deceased. Burdens of proof and presumptions are very important in these cases. Further, although the Court in Robinson v. Gutierrez was presented with a free room and board situation, the Court discussed the meaning of the term “remuneration” more broadly in the context of Cal. Probate Code sections 21380 and 21362. Thus, depending on the specific facts and circumstances that are at issue, it might be arguable that any number and manner of other of circumstances other than free room and board might also constitute “remuneration.”

For your additional information, the following is the full copy of Cal. Probate Code section 21380 (and see also the entirety of Cal. Probate Code sections 21380-21392):

“21380. Presumption of fraud or undue influence for certain enumerated transfers; burden of proof; costs and attorney’s fees

(a) A provision of an instrument making a donative transfer to any of the following persons is presumed to be the product of fraud or undue influence:

(1) The person who drafted the instrument.

(2) A person who transcribed the instrument or caused it to be transcribed and who was in a fiduciary relationship with the transferor when the instrument was transcribed.

(3) A care custodian of a transferor who is a dependent adult, but only if the instrument was executed during the period in which the care custodian provided services to the transferor, or within 90 days before or after that period.

(4) A care custodian who commenced a marriage, cohabitation, or domestic partnership with a transferor who is a dependent adult while providing services to that dependent adult, or within 90 days after those services were last provided to the dependent adult, if the donative transfer occurred, or the instrument was executed, less than six months after the marriage, cohabitation, or domestic partnership commenced.

(5) A person who is related by blood or affinity, within the third degree, to any person described in paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive.

(6) A cohabitant or employee of any person described in paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive.

(7) A partner, shareholder, or employee of a law firm in which a person described in paragraph (1) or (2) has an ownership interest.

(b) The presumption created by this section is a presumption affecting the burden of proof. The presumption may be rebutted by proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the donative transfer was not the product of fraud or undue influence.

(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), with respect to a donative transfer to the person who drafted the donative instrument, or to a person who is related to, or associated with, the drafter as described in paragraph (5), (6), or (7) of subdivision (a), the presumption created by this section is conclusive.

(d) If a beneficiary is unsuccessful in rebutting the presumption, the beneficiary shall bear all costs of the proceeding, including reasonable attorney’s fees.”

Best to you, David Tate, Esq.

Please reach out on this topic or on other topics if you wish.

* * * *

Thank you for viewing and reading this discussion. Please do pass this blog and blog post and information to other people who would be interested as it is only through collaboration and sharing that great things and success are more quickly achieved. If you are interested in discussing anything that I have said in the discussion above or in either of my two blogs (see blog addresses below), or if you simply want to reach out or are seeking assistance, it is best to reach me by email at dave@tateattorney.com.

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

Trust, estate, probate, power of attorney, fiduciary, beneficiary, conservatorship, and elder and dependent adult abuse litigation and contentious administrations, undue influence, fraud and deceit, physical and mental health and challenging and contentious personalities and relationships.

Trust, estate and probate administrations and litigation involving special assets such as business ownership interests and operating businesses, asset co-ownership disputes, contentious governance, intellectual property assets, art and collectible assets, ongoing future contractual rights, buyouts and sales, M&A disputes, businesses divorces, and accountings.

Businesses and third party disputes and litigation – contract, licensing, co-business, royalty and other arrangements, unfair business practices, fraud and deceit, lack of good faith and fair dealing, buyouts and sales, mergers, acquisitions, ventures, etc.

Business co-ownership and internal governance disputes and litigation, business divorces, buyouts and sales, merger and acquisition disputes, family, closely held and professional businesses, accountings, and audits, D&O, boards, audit committees and investigations. Legal authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, diligence, compliance, liability, BJR, legal risk management, and resolution.

Real property and co-ownership disputes and litigation.

Trials.

Mediator and dispute and litigation resolution services.

Legal risk and uncertainty management processes – authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, governance, diligence, compliance, liability, and resolution.

Other and additional disputes, litigation and issues that fall within the above areas – court and trial evidence, persuasion, debate and fallacies, using AI assistance, IP, meetings, defamation, risk management processes, workplace, new laws, regulations and government actions – impact/legality, law and legal matters in the news, etc.

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation, or as or for my opinions and views on the subject matter.

Also note – sometimes I include links to or comments about materials from other organizations or people – if I do so, it is because I believe that the materials are worthwhile reading or viewing; however, that does not mean that I do not or that I might not have a different view about some or even all of the subject matter or materials, or that I necessarily agree with, or agree with everything about or relating to, that organization or person, or those materials or the subject matter.

Please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My blogs are:

http://tateattorney.com – business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. – previously at http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Prior blog: Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing only as an attorney in California.

Headlines (ABC) this morning: Los Angeles jury awards $2 million + to protestor shot in face with nonlethal projectile . . . .

The following is the link to the ABC story: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/jury-awards-2-million-protester-shot-face-nonlethal-125043462?cid=social_twitter_abcn&s=03

As with essentially all news stories and reporting, unless perhaps it is a very in depth investigation and report, I note that this article does fail to include some significant legal, factual, and evidentiary information, including a discussion about the defenses that were asserted including special defenses that might be available to police officers, whether the officer felt that he or she was in physical danger from some source, and presumptions and burdens of proof; however, based on the information that the article does provide and considering that this was a Los Angeles jury (and jury verdicts in Los Angeles can be very, very high), this verdict could have been higher and the defense should be relieved that it wasn’t. The plaintiff also might decide to appeal, although based on the article it sounds like there are deliberations that are still to be made and that the final verdict amount still might change either down or up.

As you might already know, I am big on governance and risk management processes, including legal risk management processes. As this situation and the injuries occurred several years ago (yes the plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel stuck with this case for a long time), I would assume that what occurred and the force that was used were reviewed and evaluated internally with a view toward possible changes or perhaps not. A final comment, the injuries were significant – thankfully they were not worse for the plaintiffs as they could have been in different circumstances.

Best to you, David Tate, Esq.

Please reach out on this topic or on other topics if you wish.

* * * *

Thank you for viewing and reading this discussion. Please do pass this blog and blog post and information to other people who would be interested as it is only through collaboration and sharing that great things and success are more quickly achieved. If you are interested in discussing anything that I have said in the discussion above or in either of my two blogs (see blog addresses below), or if you simply want to reach out or are seeking assistance, it is best to reach me by email at dave@tateattorney.com.

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

Trust, estate, probate, power of attorney, fiduciary, beneficiary, conservatorship, and elder and dependent adult abuse litigation and contentious administrations, undue influence, fraud and deceit, physical and mental health and challenging and contentious personalities and relationships.

Trust, estate and probate administrations and litigation involving special assets such as business ownership interests and operating businesses, asset co-ownership disputes, contentious governance, intellectual property assets, art and collectible assets, ongoing future contractual rights, buyouts and sales, M&A disputes, businesses divorces, and accountings.

Businesses and third party disputes and litigation – contract, licensing, co-business, royalty and other arrangements, unfair business practices, fraud and deceit, lack of good faith and fair dealing, buyouts and sales, mergers, acquisitions, ventures, etc.

Business co-ownership and internal governance disputes and litigation, business divorces, buyouts and sales, merger and acquisition disputes, family, closely held and professional businesses, accountings, and audits, D&O, boards, audit committees and investigations. Legal authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, diligence, compliance, liability, BJR, legal risk management, and resolution.

Real property and co-ownership disputes and litigation.

Trials.

Mediator and dispute and litigation resolution services.

Legal risk and uncertainty management processes – authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, governance, diligence, compliance, liability, and resolution.

Other and additional disputes, litigation and issues that fall within the above areas – court and trial evidence, persuasion, debate and fallacies, using AI assistance, IP, meetings, defamation, risk management processes, workplace, new laws, regulations and government actions – impact/legality, law and legal matters in the news, etc.

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation, or as or for my opinions and views on the subject matter.

Also note – sometimes I include links to or comments about materials from other organizations or people – if I do so, it is because I believe that the materials are worthwhile reading or viewing; however, that does not mean that I do not or that I might not have a different view about some or even all of the subject matter or materials, or that I necessarily agree with, or agree with everything about or relating to, that organization or person, or those materials or the subject matter.

Please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My blogs are:

http://tateattorney.com – business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. – previously at http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Prior blog: Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing only as an attorney in California.

Can a defense of a contested trust amendment trigger a no contest clause?

Can a defense of a contested trust amendment trigger a no contest clause? In Key v. Tyler the Court answered “yes” it may, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case (California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Case No. B322246 (Filed 5/28/24)).

In Key v. Tyler the Trustors (Thomas and Elizabeth) executed their original Trust in 1999. The trust contained a no-contest clause which in part stated as follows:

“. . . if any devisee, legatee or beneficiary under this Trust, or any legal heir of the Trustors or person claiming under any of them directly or indirectly (a) contests either Trustor’s Will, this Trust, or any other trust created by a Trustor, or in any manner attacks or seeks to impair or invalidate any of their provisions,. . . then in that event Trustors specifically disinherit each such person, and all such legacies, bequests, devises, and interest given under this Trust to that person shall be forfeited as though he or she had predeceased the Trustors without issue, and shall augment proportionately the shares of the Trust Estate passing under this Trust to, or in trust for, such of the Trustors’ devisees, legatees and beneficiaries who have not participated in such acts or proceedings.”

The Trustors had three children: Tyler, Key, and a third sister who was not involved in the litigation.

In 2003 the Trustors subsequently executed an Amendment to the Trust – the 2003 Amendment was a one-page document that made some dispositive changes but did not restate or entirely change the provisions in the 1999 Trust – thus, the 1999 Trust remained relevant and applicable except as changed by the provisions in the one-page 2003 Amendment. The 2003 Amendment did not contain a no contest clause.

Husband Thomas subsequently died in 2003, and surviving spouse Elizabeth purportedly executed another Amendment in 2007. Pursuant to the Court “Tyler used her influence over Elizabeth to obtain the 2007 Amendment.” Beneficiary Key filed an action and successfully invalidated the 2007 Amendment on the ground that Tyler unduly influenced their mother into executing the 2007 Amendment. Against Key’s action Tyler defended the 2007 Amendments which differed from some of the provisions in the original 1999 Trust. Tyler also was a beneficiary under the 1999 Trust but would have inherited differently under the 2007 Amendment if that Amendment had not been invalidated.

Key v. Tyler is a long 20+ page Opinion which contains many relevant discussions on legal issues. However, I am writing about the Opinion here because of the discussion relating to the no contest clause in the 1999 Trust and the consequences of the litigation pertaining to the 2007 Amendment.

The Court held that Tyler’s defense of the 2007 Amendment was a contest of the 1999 Trust, and that Tyler not only did not recover under the 2007 Amendment which the Court invalidated, but also disinherited herself from what she would have recovered under the original 1999 Trust or under the 2003 Amendment pursuant to the broadly worded no contest clause that was contained in the earlier original 1999 Trust. In other words, as a result of losing on the 2007 Amendment, and there being a broadly worded no contest clause in the original 1999 Trust, Tyler lost everything and recovered nothing.

Takeaway: careful consideration needs to be given to the existence of no contest clauses contained in any and all possibly relevant trust and estate disposition instruments and documents, and to the specific wording of each possibly applicable no contest clause, as even defending a later in time subsequent instrument also may in appropriate circumstances trigger a no contest clause in an earlier instrument.

The following is a case caption scan from the Opinion in Key v. Tyler: 

Best to you, David Tate, Esq.

Please reach out on this topic or on other topics if you wish.

* * * *

Thank you for viewing and reading this discussion. Please do pass this blog and blog post and information to other people who would be interested as it is only through collaboration and sharing that great things and success are more quickly achieved. If you are interested in discussing anything that I have said in the discussion above or in either of my two blogs (see blog addresses below), or if you simply want to reach out or are seeking assistance, it is best to reach me by email at dave@tateattorney.com.

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

Trust, estate, probate, power of attorney, fiduciary, beneficiary, conservatorship, and elder and dependent adult abuse litigation and contentious administrations, undue influence, fraud and deceit, physical and mental health and challenging and contentious personalities and relationships.

Trust, estate and probate administrations and litigation involving special assets such as business ownership interests and operating businesses, asset co-ownership disputes, contentious governance, intellectual property assets, art and collectible assets, ongoing future contractual rights, buyouts and sales, M&A disputes, businesses divorces, and accountings.

Businesses and third party disputes and litigation – contract, licensing, co-business, royalty and other arrangements, unfair business practices, fraud and deceit, lack of good faith and fair dealing, buyouts and sales, mergers, acquisitions, ventures, etc.

Business co-ownership and internal governance disputes and litigation, business divorces, buyouts and sales, merger and acquisition disputes, family, closely held and professional businesses, accountings, and audits, D&O, boards, audit committees and investigations. Legal authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, diligence, compliance, liability, BJR, legal risk management, and resolution.

Real property and co-ownership disputes and litigation.

Trials.

Mediator and dispute and litigation resolution services.

Legal risk and uncertainty management processes – authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, governance, diligence, compliance, liability, and resolution.

Other and additional disputes, litigation and issues that fall within the above areas – court and trial evidence, persuasion, debate and fallacies, using AI assistance, IP, meetings, defamation, risk management processes, workplace, new laws, regulations and government actions – impact/legality, law and legal matters in the news, etc.

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation, or as or for my opinions and views on the subject matter.

Also note – sometimes I include links to or comments about materials from other organizations or people – if I do so, it is because I believe that the materials are worthwhile reading or viewing; however, that does not mean that I do not or that I might not have a different view about some or even all of the subject matter or materials, or that I necessarily agree with, or agree with everything about or relating to, that organization or person, or those materials or the subject matter.

Please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My blogs are:

http://tateattorney.com – business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. – previously at http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Prior blog: Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing only as an attorney in California.

What do you do if you are a CPA and the co-owners of the business that you represent do not agree or get along?

See the slide below with some options – I have seen this scenario multiple times: What do you do if you are a CPA and the co-owners of the business that you represent do not agree or get along?

Best to you, David Tate, Esq.

Please reach out on this topic or on other topics if you wish.

* * * *

Thank you for viewing and reading this discussion. Please do pass this blog and blog post and information to other people who would be interested as it is only through collaboration and sharing that great things and success are more quickly achieved. If you are interested in discussing anything that I have said in the discussion above or in either of my two blogs (see blog addresses below), or if you simply want to reach out or are seeking assistance, it is best to reach me by email at dave@tateattorney.com.

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

Trust, estate, probate, power of attorney, fiduciary, beneficiary, conservatorship, and elder and dependent adult abuse litigation and contentious administrations, undue influence, fraud and deceit, physical and mental health and challenging and contentious personalities and relationships.

Trust, estate and probate administrations and litigation involving special assets such as business ownership interests and operating businesses, asset co-ownership disputes, contentious governance, intellectual property assets, art and collectible assets, ongoing future contractual rights, buyouts and sales, M&A disputes, businesses divorces, and accountings.

Businesses and third party disputes and litigation – contract, licensing, co-business, royalty and other arrangements, unfair business practices, fraud and deceit, lack of good faith and fair dealing, buyouts and sales, mergers, acquisitions, ventures, etc.

Business co-ownership and internal governance disputes and litigation, business divorces, buyouts and sales, merger and acquisition disputes, family, closely held and professional businesses, accountings, and audits, D&O, boards, audit committees and investigations. Legal authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, diligence, compliance, liability, BJR, legal risk management, and resolution.

Real property and co-ownership disputes and litigation.

Trials.

Mediator and dispute and litigation resolution services.

Legal risk and uncertainty management processes – authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, governance, diligence, compliance, liability, and resolution.

Other and additional disputes, litigation and issues that fall within the above areas – court and trial evidence, persuasion, debate and fallacies, using AI assistance, IP, meetings, defamation, risk management processes, workplace, new laws, regulations and government actions – impact/legality, law and legal matters in the news, etc.

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation, or as or for my opinions and views on the subject matter.

Also note – sometimes I include links to or comments about materials from other organizations or people – if I do so, it is because I believe that the materials are worthwhile reading or viewing; however, that does not mean that I do not or that I might not have a different view about some or even all of the subject matter or materials, or that I necessarily agree with, or agree with everything about or relating to, that organization or person, or those materials or the subject matter.

Please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My blogs are:

http://tateattorney.com – business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. – previously at http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Prior blog: Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing only as an attorney in California.

Yes, evaluate your AI and automation processes, uses, and policies – forwarding discussions from Baker Hostetler and Lathrop GPM

At this point AI use and automation news and discussions occur almost daily, and for good reasons. I am forwarding below links to two worthwhile discussions from Baker Hostetler (AI audits) and Lathrop GPM (liability considerations). For businesses, nonprofits, higher education, governmental entities, and at this point basically everyone who uses AI and automation, whether they are developed inhouse and then used, or are developed by an outside source and then used inhouse with aspects of possible agency, AI and automation use and output must be trustworthy and in compliance with the laws for which they are being used (such as, e.g., in the HR context and possible discriminatory evaluation or output). AI and automation can be helpful, but variously depending on the situation and circumstances at least in the legal use context they do not replace people for overall review and evaluation. These are topics that are now with us and that will be with us forever including for executive officers and management, boards and committees (including audit committees, risk committees and governance committees), chief legal officers, auditors (internal and external), compliance and ethics officers, and other people in management, compliance, diligence, and risk. And, yes, this also applies for attorneys and their practices.

The following is a link to the Baker Hostetler AI audit discussion:

https://www.bakerlaw.com/insights/ai-audits-initial-steps-toward-building-user-trust-and-maintaining-international-norms-the-journal-of-robotics-artificial-intelligence-law/

The following is a link to the Lathrop GPM liability considerations discussion:

https://www.lathropgpm.com/insights/liability-considerations-for-developers-and-users-of-agentic-ai-systems/

Best to you, David Tate, Esq.

Please reach out on this topic or on other topics if you wish.

* * * *

Thank you for viewing and reading this discussion. Please do pass this blog and blog post and information to other people who would be interested as it is only through collaboration and sharing that great things and success are more quickly achieved. If you are interested in discussing anything that I have said in the discussion above or in either of my two blogs (see blog addresses below), or if you simply want to reach out or are seeking assistance, it is best to reach me by email at dave@tateattorney.com.

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

Trust, estate, probate, power of attorney, fiduciary, beneficiary, conservatorship, and elder and dependent adult abuse litigation and contentious administrations, undue influence, fraud and deceit, physical and mental health and challenging and contentious personalities and relationships.

Trust, estate and probate administrations and litigation involving special assets such as business ownership interests and operating businesses, asset co-ownership disputes, contentious governance, intellectual property assets, art and collectible assets, ongoing future contractual rights, buyouts and sales, M&A disputes, businesses divorces, and accountings.

Businesses and third party disputes and litigation – contract, licensing, co-business, royalty and other arrangements, unfair business practices, fraud and deceit, lack of good faith and fair dealing, buyouts and sales, mergers, acquisitions, ventures, etc.

Business co-ownership and internal governance disputes and litigation, business divorces, buyouts and sales, merger and acquisition disputes, family, closely held and professional businesses, accountings, and audits, D&O, boards, audit committees and investigations. Legal authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, diligence, compliance, liability, BJR, legal risk management, and resolution.

Real property and co-ownership disputes and litigation.

Trials.

Mediator and dispute and litigation resolution services.

Legal risk and uncertainty management processes – authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, governance, diligence, compliance, liability, and resolution.

Other and additional disputes, litigation and issues that fall within the above areas – court and trial evidence, persuasion, debate and fallacies, using AI assistance, IP, meetings, defamation, risk management processes, workplace, new laws, regulations and government actions – impact/legality, law and legal matters in the news, etc.

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation, or as or for my opinions and views on the subject matter.

Also note – sometimes I include links to or comments about materials from other organizations or people – if I do so, it is because I believe that the materials are worthwhile reading or viewing; however, that does not mean that I do not or that I might not have a different view about some or even all of the subject matter or materials, or that I necessarily agree with, or agree with everything about or relating to, that organization or person, or those materials or the subject matter.

Please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My blogs are:

http://tateattorney.com – business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. – previously at http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Prior blog: Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing only as an attorney in California.

Summary of California Trustee and Beneficiary Responsibilities and Rights, and Handling Contentious Trust Administrations and Other Family Situations

Trust administrations and handling tasks and issues that arise are challenging, including responsibilities and rights, contentious administrations and other family situations, trustee duties and actions, and beneficiary conduct. Whether you are a trustee or a beneficiary, you should consult with a trust administration attorney, and in some situations also consult with a litigation attorney.

I have provided below a pdf of my presentation slides providing a summary of California trustee and beneficiary responsibilities and right, and handling contentious administrations and other family situations. Please read and use the slides and pass them to other people who would benefit. Please see also the disclaimer – these materials are only a summary, and do not apply to you, or to any person or situation, and do not create an attorney client relationship.

The following is a snap shot of the first page of the presentation slides (the slides are also provided below as a pdf):

The following is a pdf of my presentation slides:

David W. Tate, Esq. – Summary of California Trustee and Beneficiary Responsibilities and Rights, and Contentious Administrations 07212025Download

David Tate, Esq.

Please reach out on this topic or on other topics if you wish.

* * * *

Thank you for viewing and reading this discussion. Please do pass this blog and blog post and information to other people who would be interested as it is only through collaboration and sharing that great things and success are more quickly achieved. If you are interested in discussing anything that I have said in the discussion above or in either of my two blogs (see blog addresses below), or if you simply want to reach out or are seeking assistance, it is best to reach me by email at dave@tateattorney.com.

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

Trust, estate, probate, power of attorney, fiduciary, beneficiary, conservatorship, and elder and dependent adult abuse litigation and contentious administrations, undue influence, fraud and deceit, physical and mental health and challenging and contentious personalities and relationships.

Trust, estate and probate administrations and litigation involving special assets such as business ownership interests and operating businesses, asset co-ownership disputes, contentious governance, intellectual property assets, art and collectible assets, ongoing future contractual rights, buyouts and sales, M&A disputes, businesses divorces, and accountings.

Businesses and third party disputes and litigation – contract, licensing, co-business, royalty and other arrangements, unfair business practices, fraud and deceit, lack of good faith and fair dealing, buyouts and sales, mergers, acquisitions, ventures, etc.

Business co-ownership and internal governance disputes and litigation, business divorces, buyouts and sales, merger and acquisition disputes, family, closely held and professional businesses, accountings, and audits, D&O, boards, audit committees and investigations. Legal authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, diligence, compliance, liability, BJR, legal risk management, and resolution.

Real property and co-ownership disputes and litigation.

Trials.

Mediator and dispute and litigation resolution services.

Legal risk and uncertainty management processes – authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, governance, diligence, compliance, liability, and resolution.

Other and additional disputes, litigation and issues that fall within the above areas – court and trial evidence, persuasion, debate and fallacies, using AI assistance, IP, meetings, defamation, risk management processes, workplace, new laws, regulations and government actions – impact/legality, law and legal matters in the news, etc.

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation, or as or for my opinions and views on the subject matter.

Also note – sometimes I include links to or comments about materials from other organizations or people – if I do so, it is because I believe that the materials are worthwhile reading or viewing; however, that does not mean that I do not or that I might not have a different view about some or even all of the subject matter or materials, or that I necessarily agree with, or agree with everything about or relating to, that organization or person, or those materials or the subject matter.

Please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My blogs are:

http://tateattorney.com – business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. – previously at http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Prior blog: Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing only as an attorney in California.

Big differences in LLC manager-managed duties and member-managed duties under Cal. Corp. Code section 17704.09

Under California Corporations Code section 17704.09 there a big differences in member and manager duties depending on whether the LLC is manager-managed or member-managed. You should work closely with legal counsel when you are forming the LLC, including the preparation of your operating agreement if you have such an agreement. I have pasted section 17704.09 below in its entirety. However, for ease of reference for this discussion I am starting with section 17704.09(f) which discusses manager-managed LLCs. Remember, however, that you must also read, understand, and follow other relevant LLC instruments and documents such as the provisions in the operating agreement if there is such an agreement.

Manager-managed LLC

California Corporations Code section 17704.09(f) provides as follows:

(f) In a manager-managed limited liability company, all of the following rules apply:

(1) Subdivisions (a), (b), (c), and (e) apply to the manager or managers and not the members.

(2) Subdivision (d) applies to the members and managers.

(3) Except as otherwise provided, a member does not have any fiduciary duty to the limited liability company or to any other member solely by reason of being a member.

Section 17704.09(f)(2) states that subdivision (d) applies to the members and the managers – section 17704.09(d) states as follows (and I will discuss the duty of good faith and fair dealing in a subsequent post – the duty of good faith and fair dealing can be implied by law (such as in every contract and even more specifically in insurance contracts), or may apply pursuant to specific contractual terms, or may apply statutorily (such as pursuant to section 17704.09)):

Section 17704.09(d): A member shall discharge the duties to a limited liability company and the other members under this title or under the operating agreement and exercise any rights consistent with the obligation of good faith and fair dealing.

Section 17704.09(f)(1) also states that subdivision (e) applies and which I have pasted immediately below, and that subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) apply and which are discussed further below:

Section 17704.09(e): A member does not violate a duty or obligation under this article or under the operating agreement merely because the member’s conduct furthers the member’s own interest.

Member-managed LLC

With respect to member-managed LLCs, section 17704.09(a)-(e) provide as follows:

(a) The fiduciary duties that a member owes to a member-managed limited liability company and the other members of the limited liability company are the duties of loyalty and care under subdivisions (b) and (c).

(b) A member’s duty of loyalty to the limited liability company and the other members is limited to the following:

(1) To account to the limited liability company and hold as trustee for it any property, profit, or benefit derived by the member in the conduct and winding up of the activities of a limited liability company or derived from a use by the member of a limited liability company property, including the appropriation of a limited liability company opportunity.

(2) To refrain from dealing with the limited liability company in the conduct or winding up of the activities of the limited liability company as or on behalf of a person having an interest adverse to the limited liability company.

(3) To refrain from competing with the limited liability company in the conduct or winding up of the activities of the limited liability company.

(c) A member’s duty of care to a limited liability company and the other members in the conduct and winding up of the activities of the limited liability company is limited to refraining from engaging in grossly negligent or reckless conduct, intentional misconduct, or a knowing violation of law.

(d) A member shall discharge the duties to a limited liability company and the other members under this title or under the operating agreement and exercise any rights consistent with the obligation of good faith and fair dealing (thus, again, a member as a member is subject to a duty of good faith and fair dealing, but not in every action or conduct).

(e) A member does not violate a duty or obligation under this article or under the operating agreement merely because the member’s conduct furthers the member’s own interest.

You can see that under Cal. Corp. Code section 17704.09 the duties that are owned by a member in a member-managed LLC are more onerous than in a manager-managed LLC. However, there is still the decision to be made whether your LLC should be member-managed or manager-managed, and that is a discussion that you need to have with your legal counsel when you are forming or perhaps later amending your LLC.

Below I have pasted section 17704.09 in its entirety:

California Corporations Code section 17704.09

(a) The fiduciary duties that a member owes to a member-managed limited liability company and the other members of the limited liability company are the duties of loyalty and care under subdivisions (b) and (c).

(b) A member’s duty of loyalty to the limited liability company and the other members is limited to the following:

(1) To account to the limited liability company and hold as trustee for it any property, profit, or benefit derived by the member in the conduct and winding up of the activities of a limited liability company or derived from a use by the member of a limited liability company property, including the appropriation of a limited liability company opportunity.

(2) To refrain from dealing with the limited liability company in the conduct or winding up of the activities of the limited liability company as or on behalf of a person having an interest adverse to the limited liability company.

(3) To refrain from competing with the limited liability company in the conduct or winding up of the activities of the limited liability company.

(c) A member’s duty of care to a limited liability company and the other members in the conduct and winding up of the activities of the limited liability company is limited to refraining from engaging in grossly negligent or reckless conduct, intentional misconduct, or a knowing violation of law.

(d) A member shall discharge the duties to a limited liability company and the other members under this title or under the operating agreement and exercise any rights consistent with the obligation of good faith and fair dealing.

(e) A member does not violate a duty or obligation under this article or under the operating agreement merely because the member’s conduct furthers the member’s own interest.

(f) In a manager-managed limited liability company, all of the following rules apply:

(1) Subdivisions (a), (b), (c), and (e) apply to the manager or managers and not the members.

(2) Subdivision (d) applies to the members and managers.

(3) Except as otherwise provided, a member does not have any fiduciary duty to the limited liability company or to any other member solely by reason of being a member.

David Tate, Esq.

Please reach out on this topic or on other topics if you wish.

* * * *

Thank you for viewing and reading this discussion. Please do pass this blog and blog post and information to other people who would be interested as it is only through collaboration and sharing that great things and success are more quickly achieved. If you are interested in discussing anything that I have said in the discussion above or in either of my two blogs (see blog addresses below), or if you simply want to reach out or are seeking assistance, it is best to reach me by email at dave@tateattorney.com.

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

Trust, estate, probate, power of attorney, fiduciary, beneficiary, conservatorship, and elder and dependent adult abuse litigation and contentious administrations, undue influence, fraud and deceit, physical and mental health and challenging and contentious personalities and relationships.

Trust, estate and probate administrations and litigation involving special assets such as business ownership interests and operating businesses, asset co-ownership disputes, contentious governance, intellectual property assets, art and collectible assets, ongoing future contractual rights, buyouts and sales, M&A disputes, businesses divorces, and accountings.

Businesses and third party disputes and litigation – contract, licensing, co-business, royalty and other arrangements, unfair business practices, fraud and deceit, lack of good faith and fair dealing, buyouts and sales, mergers, acquisitions, ventures, etc.

Business co-ownership and internal governance disputes and litigation, business divorces, buyouts and sales, merger and acquisition disputes, family, closely held and professional businesses, accountings, and audits, D&O, boards, audit committees and investigations. Legal authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, diligence, compliance, liability, BJR, legal risk management, and resolution.

Real property and co-ownership disputes and litigation.

Trials.

Mediator and dispute and litigation resolution services.

Legal risk and uncertainty management processes – authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, governance, diligence, compliance, liability, and resolution.

Other and additional disputes, litigation and issues that fall within the above areas – court and trial evidence, persuasion, debate and fallacies, using AI assistance, IP, meetings, defamation, risk management processes, workplace, new laws, regulations and government actions – impact/legality, law and legal matters in the news, etc.

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation, or as or for my opinions and views on the subject matter.

Also note – sometimes I include links to or comments about materials from other organizations or people – if I do so, it is because I believe that the materials are worthwhile reading or viewing; however, that does not mean that I do not or that I might not have a different view about some or even all of the subject matter or materials, or that I necessarily agree with, or agree with everything about or relating to, that organization or person, or those materials or the subject matter.

Please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My blogs are:

http://tateattorney.com – business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. – previously at http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Prior blog: Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing only as an attorney in California.

What if Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni could settle with a walk-away?

What if Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni could settle and walk-away. Well . . . they can. Below I have pasted a slide scan from my February 18, post, suggesting just that – that they agree to a walk-away settlement and move on with their lives and careers. It would be difficult to get either of them to pay money to the other without having to go to trial, after which an appeal might be expected. It also would be difficult but perhaps not impossible for them to agree to a working together arrangement, but that seems unlikely. They have each proven a point or two, but there is no adjudication, and the outcome of any adjudication and damage that might be awarded, if any, are uncertain. I still recommend a walk-away. Below I have pasted my slide from my February 18, post – even with changes and orders that have already occurred claims and defenses remain. Below I have also pasted my February 9, post titled: Interesting from the Lively/Baldoni litigation: defamation and civil extortion allegations.

February 18, 2025 slide (repost):

February 9, post (repost): Interesting from the Lively/Baldoni litigation: defamation and civil extortion allegations:

I am finding the defamation and civil extortion allegations some of the more interesting from a legal perspective, of course while seeing the allegations and the arguments and supposed evidence presented to the public is very interesting and something that we almost never see. Broadly speaking, defamation is: an untrue statement of fact or purported fact (e.g., not opinion) that is published (i.e., said or in print or in writing) to a third party (i.e. not simply to the person about whom the statement or writing is about, but to a third person) that hurts the reputation of the person about whom the statement or writing is about.

In Lively/Baldoni there are allegations that defamatory statements were made by Lively and by Baldoni themselves, and by agents such as PR or crisis firms representing Lively and Baldoni, and by the regular press (NYT). The allegations against the press include allegations that what they wrote was defamatory because of the alleged selective or incomplete nature of the statements and information that were included in the writing – thus allegedly not presenting an accurate writing or statement and alleged defamatory. If you are wondering, yes, a claim of defamation can be alleged on the basis of an alleged selective or incomplete statement or writing. As defamation is not an uncommon possibility, you might also be wondering whether someone possibly has defamed someone else in your circles or activities – slander (i.e., spoken) or libel (i.e., written).

There is a lot of discovery to be done – requests and subpoenas for documents, taking depositions, interrogatories, requests for admissions, experts, and more.

Keep in mind however, that none of what you are seeing is actual evidence that has been rebutted or cross-examined or questioned or even presented and admitted into evidence in Court at trial. I will be providing additional posts pertaining to defamation, and we also have not touched on the claim of civil extortion, or on the allegations of hostile or harassing workplace environment (including in the context of the script, the filming, and Hollywood), or on the efforts to resolve issues during the filming, or on workplace and filming oversight, diligence and compliance by HR, executive and management officers, boards/committees, and others.

Also keep in mind that the allegations, documents and arguments that you are seeing are or will be questions and issues of fact to be applied to the applicable laws and to be determined by the trier of fact (i.e., the jury). No one knows how the claims would be viewed by the selected jury at trial. And I should add that of course the above is just a summary discussion – for example, some statements are privileged or protected, there can be First Amendment freedom of speech issues, there are differing standards of culpability or wrongdoing depending on whether the person to whom the alleged statement applies is a public person or figure, and in California you can have anti-SLAPP issues, in addition to other issues, criteria and elements.

See also:

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER TO HELP FACILITATE LEGAL DISPUTE EVALUATION, RESOLUTION AND SETTLEMENT David Tate Esq. 07032025Download

David Tate, Esq.

Please reach out on this topic or on other topics if you wish.

* * * *

Thank you for viewing and reading this discussion. Please do pass this blog and blog post and information to other people who would be interested as it is only through collaboration and sharing that great things and success are more quickly achieved. If you are interested in discussing anything that I have said in the discussion above or in either of my two blogs (see blog addresses below), or if you simply want to reach out or are seeking assistance, it is best to reach me by email at dave@tateattorney.com.

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

Trust, estate, probate, power of attorney, fiduciary, beneficiary, conservatorship, and elder and dependent adult abuse litigation and contentious administrations, undue influence, fraud and deceit, physical and mental health and challenging and contentious personalities and relationships.

Trust, estate and probate administrations and litigation involving special assets such as business ownership interests and operating businesses, asset co-ownership disputes, contentious governance, intellectual property assets, art and collectible assets, ongoing future contractual rights, buyouts and sales, M&A disputes, businesses divorces, and accountings.

Businesses and third party disputes and litigation – contract, licensing, co-business, royalty and other arrangements, unfair business practices, fraud and deceit, lack of good faith and fair dealing, buyouts and sales, mergers, acquisitions, ventures, etc.

Business co-ownership and internal governance disputes and litigation, business divorces, buyouts and sales, merger and acquisition disputes, family, closely held and professional businesses, accountings, and audits, D&O, boards, audit committees and investigations. Legal authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, diligence, compliance, liability, BJR, legal risk management, and resolution.

Real property and co-ownership disputes and litigation.

Trials.

Mediator and dispute and litigation resolution services.

Legal risk and uncertainty management processes – authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, governance, diligence, compliance, liability, and resolution.

Other and additional disputes, litigation and issues that fall within the above areas – court and trial evidence, persuasion, debate and fallacies, using AI assistance, IP, meetings, defamation, risk management processes, workplace, new laws, regulations and government actions – impact/legality, law and legal matters in the news, etc.

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation, or as or for my opinions and views on the subject matter.

Also note – sometimes I include links to or comments about materials from other organizations or people – if I do so, it is because I believe that the materials are worthwhile reading or viewing; however, that does not mean that I do not or that I might not have a different view about some or even all of the subject matter or materials, or that I necessarily agree with, or agree with everything about or relating to, that organization or person, or those materials or the subject matter.

Please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My blogs are:

http://tateattorney.com – business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. – previously at http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Prior blog: Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing only as an attorney in California.

Questions to Consider to Help Facilitate Legal Dispute Evaluation, Resolution and Settlement – David W. Tate, Esq.

Greetings. Below I have attached a pdf of my updated Questions to Consider to Help Facilitate Legal Dispute Evaluation, Resolution and Settlement. Please read and forward to other people who will find it useful.

David Tate, Esq.

Please reach out on this topic or on other topics if you wish.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER TO HELP FACILITATE LEGAL DISPUTE EVALUATION, RESOLUTION AND SETTLEMENT David Tate Esq. 07032025Download

* * * *

Thank you for viewing and reading this discussion. Please do pass this blog and blog post and information to other people who would be interested as it is only through collaboration and sharing that great things and success are more quickly achieved. If you are interested in discussing anything that I have said in the discussion above or in either of my two blogs (see blog addresses below), or if you simply want to reach out or are seeking assistance, it is best to reach me by email at dave@tateattorney.com.

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

Trust, estate, probate, power of attorney, fiduciary, beneficiary, conservatorship, and elder and dependent adult abuse litigation and contentious administrations, undue influence, fraud and deceit, physical and mental health and challenging and contentious personalities and relationships.

Trust, estate and probate administrations and litigation involving special assets such as business ownership interests and operating businesses, asset co-ownership disputes, contentious governance, intellectual property assets, art and collectible assets, ongoing future contractual rights, buyouts and sales, M&A disputes, businesses divorces, and accountings.

Businesses and third party disputes and litigation – contract, licensing, co-business, royalty and other arrangements, unfair business practices, fraud and deceit, lack of good faith and fair dealing, buyouts and sales, mergers, acquisitions, ventures, etc.

Business co-ownership and internal governance disputes and litigation, business divorces, buyouts and sales, merger and acquisition disputes, family, closely held and professional businesses, accountings, and audits, D&O, boards, audit committees and investigations. Legal authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, diligence, compliance, liability, BJR, legal risk management, and resolution.

Real property and co-ownership disputes and litigation.

Trials.

Mediator and dispute and litigation resolution services.

Legal risk and uncertainty management processes – authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, governance, diligence, compliance, liability, and resolution.

Other and additional disputes, litigation and issues that fall within the above areas – court and trial evidence, persuasion, debate and fallacies, using AI assistance, IP, meetings, defamation, risk management processes, workplace, new laws, regulations and government actions – impact/legality, law and legal matters in the news, etc.

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation, or as or for my opinions and views on the subject matter.

Also note – sometimes I include links to or comments about materials from other organizations or people – if I do so, it is because I believe that the materials are worthwhile reading or viewing; however, that does not mean that I do not or that I might not have a different view about some or even all of the subject matter or materials, or that I necessarily agree with, or agree with everything about or relating to, that organization or person, or those materials or the subject matter.

Please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My blogs are:

http://tateattorney.com – business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. – previously at http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Prior blog: Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing only as an attorney in California.