Written by Jeremiah J. Moffit, Esq.,* Courtney A. Sorensen, Esq.* Craig S. Weinstein, Esq.,* and Sara Z. May, Esq.*
Autonomous Region of Narcotics Anonymous v. Narcotics Anonymous World Services, Inc. (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 950
The Second District Court of Appeal held that special standing does not apply to revocable charitable trusts. Further, where the group acting as settlor is made up of various individual groups, each individual group was not a settlor, nor did the individual groups have standing to remove the trustee.
Settlor "The Fellowship of Narcotics Anonymous, as given voice by its groups through their regional delegates at the World Service Conference" established a revocable charitable trust to control the intellectual property of Narcotics Anonymous. The trust allowed the settlor to add, delete, or revise trust properties with a two-thirds vote of regional delegates at the Conference. A subgroup of the Fellowship, The Autonomous Region of Narcotics Anonymous, filed a petition alleging that the trustee breached the charitable trust and violated its fiduciary duties. The petitioner's prayer sought the right to distribute trust literature, to review payments to the trustee, to remove the trustee, to disgorge its profits, and to award attorney's fees to petitioner. The trustee demurred, contending petitioner lacked standing. The probate court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
The Court of Appeal affirmed rejecting petitioner's argument that the individual subgroups comprising the Fellowship were each settlors, conferring each with the power of revocation to give them standing under Probate Code section 15800. The Court of Appeal found that the trust's words did not support that claim because the word "settlor" was a defined term and never appeared in plural form. The Court of Appeal also rejected petitioner's second theory of special interest standing. A revocable charitable trust does not confer special standing because the settlor is functioning and can attend to the management of the trust.
Estate of Scott Eskra (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 209
The First District Court of Appeal held a unilateral mistake regarding a premarital agreement, which was not due to excusable neglect, did not entitle the mistaken party to rescission. Further, the trial court's error in failing to make findings under Family Code section 1615, subdivision (c) was not prejudicial.
Under a premarital...
