Estate Plan By Substituted Judgment Cannot Be Contested After Death - A First from California
An appellate court in California has ruled that an estate plan created by a conservator under a substituted judgment order cannot be contested after the death of the estate owner.
The case is reported by Law.com in an article (“In Appellate First, Attacks on Wills Barred After Estate Owner Dies”) by Pamela A. MacLean of the National Law Journal.
We normally would not comment on a California case but there seem to be some general principles at work here. First, though, we should agree on terminology. While Connecticut uses the same term, “conservator,” in New York, a “guardian” would be involved, more specifically one appointed for an adult under Article 81 of the New York Mental Hygiene Law.
In general terms, someone (conservator or guardian) legally appointed to make decisions for a person who lacked capacity for decision-making created an estate plan. Substituted judgment means, generally, the plan was believed to be what the incapacitated person would have done if that person had not lacked capacity.
Most important in forming our point of view: it was done after a hearing, on notice, with an opportunity for interested parties to be heard and in accordance with a court order.
On these limited facts, one wonders why, as Law.com reports, it would be the first such decision in the nation. I acknowledge not being able to read the entire case and reacting only to these limited facts.
But, it seems to me a matter of common sense that if the parties had the opportunity to contest the estate plan before it was approved by the court, the same parties should not be permitted to wait until the death of the incapacitated person and then raise issues that could have been heard and determined in the earlier proceeding.
Will contests or, as is the case here, a challenge to a living trust, can be nasty affairs and can wastefully diminish the estate. There is no reason to give a potential objectant a second opportunity after failing to raise appropriate issues at a first hearing to approve the estate plan. It appears to be common sense and applicable in any state.