What is a PVP Attorney?
So you’ve decided, for whatever reason, that someone in your life needs a conservatorship. You started investigating the proceedings and perhaps have heard of a number of strange terms: conservatee; incapacity; probate investigator; capacity declaration; or dementia powers. If you are filing in Los Angeles County, you may learn of something called a ‘PVP attorney’. What is a PVP attorney? Do you need one? How do you get one? What exactly does a PVP attorney do?
The abbreviation “PVP” is short for “Probate Volunteer Panel”, which is a panel of attorneys who register with the Los Angeles Superior Court to assist with the resolution of various probate proceedings. The PVP panel consists of attorneys who the court appoints in probate and family law matters, including conservatorships, guardianships and related proceedings. In a typical proceeding, a PVP attorney is appointed to represent the interests of the potential conservatee or ward.
In Los Angeles County, PVP attorneys are required to be members of the State Bar of California in good standing for each of the previous three years and have no pending disciplinary proceedings. The PVP attorney must also meet certain educational requirements and maintain proscribed levels of professional insurance. Within the panel, attorneys frequently designate special expertise and certain members are appointed to deal with particular issues such as special needs trusts, taxes, or complex litigation.
The PVP attorney’s compensation is usually paid either from the conservatee’s estate (if there are resources) or by the County of Los Angeles. As with any attorney, a PVP attorney is required to zealously represent the interests of his or her client. Having been appointed by the court, however, the PVP attorney is given a secondary duty: “The PVP attorney's secondary duty is to assist the court in the resolution of the matter to be decided.” Rule 10.85, Los Angeles County Superior Court Rules.
The interesting conundrum in conservatorship cases is this: the PVP attorney is appointed to defend the legal rights of a client, but those rights include the client’s right to form an attorney-client relationship with the attorney (i.e. the right to contract). If the allegations of the conservatorship petition are true, that the potential conservatee may not have legal capacity to enter into a contract, how can the attorney create an attorney-client relationship with his or her client? If the proposed client isn’t mentally competent, then how can an attorney rely on the client to state his or her desires? Likewise, if the conservatee is legally incompetent is it in his or her best interests to fight the conservatorship proceeding?
Thus the apparent rationale for the court proscribing a secondary role for the PVP attorney; the court wants the PVP attorney to assist the court with the resolution of the matter. The PVP attorney frequently functions like an arm of the court attempting to investigate the various allegations (especially in contested proceedings) and provide objective information about the status of circumstances affecting the welfare of the conservatee. Often the court looks to the PVP attorney to provide an objective, unvarnished assessment of the merits of the conservatorship proceeding.
Another frequently asked question is whether or not the proposed conservatee is entitled to retain an attorney of his or her own choosing. In my experience, the probate court generally prefers using the PVP attorney because of a level of trust associated with the PVP attorney for, among other things, having completed the educational requirements. The non-PVP attorney then must decide whether he or she believes that it is in the client’s best interest for them to continue as additional counsel. The risk posed by this non-PVP attorney is that if the client is found incompetent, he or she may have a difficult time being compensated for services or a demand may even be made for the return of previously paid compensation. A recent opinion of the California Court of Appeals, however, has advised that a prospective conservatee must be given an opportunity to explain why he or she wants to retain other counsel.
When performing his or her duties, the PVP attorney must balance the competing requirements to protect their client’s interests and their court-directed duty to resolve the proceeding. Generally, it is not in the best interests of a proposed conservatee to engage in protracted litigation regarding his or her mental state and most PVP attorneys (in my experience) work hard to find a resolution that is in the best interests of their client.
To paraphrase the Miranda warning, you did not need a PVP attorney but if you are a proposed conservatee, one will be appointed for you. If you are a party to these types of proceedings, how do you deal with a PVP attorney? In my bias opinion (as a current member of the PVP panel), it is usually in the best interests of all parties to fully cooperate with the PVP attorney. As charged by the Court, the PVP attorney has been appointed to “assist the court in the resolution of the matter ….”
New Ebay-Like Site Helps With Estate Administration
One of the challenges in both estate planning and in post-death administration is personal property. During a lifetime, many individuals accumulate vast quantities of personal property including but not limited to jewelry, china, furniture, textiles, antiques, and the like. Few people have the stamina to go through and catalog all of their possessions or make decisions about which if their heirs, if any, should receive each item. Moreover, circumstances change and items that were once valuable may become obsolete (like an eight-track tape collection) while marginal property sometimes ages and becomes more valuable over time.
Likewise, trustees and administrators are often left with the emotionally challenging task of fairly dividing up a lifetime of personal property among beneficiaries or heirs. As the old adage goes, one person’s garbage is another person’s treasure. Some items particularly have little or no commercial value but immense personal value to the heirs or beneficiaries. How does one divide grandma’s favorite quilt among competing heirs without cutting it into pieces? The division of personal property can often be one of the more stressful aspects of estate administration.
Recently, a new web site has offered a creative solution bringing market forces to the equitable distribution of personal property. According to its promotional material, eDivvyup is an online auction site designed specifically to help with the division of the deceased personal’s property. Operating in a fashion similar to eBay, an auction on eDivvyup is a private auction restricted to invited participants. The trustee or administrator catalogs the deceased’s personal property and allows the beneficiaries or heirs who are interested to bid on it. As aptly stated on the eDivvyup web site, “While specific items may hold sentimental value for you, they are not worth the fighting and long-term damage to relationships.” Thus heirs and beneficiaries can express their true desire for particular items of personal property through the efficient application of market forces.
While not necessary or appropriate for every estate, the eDivvyup site appears to offer a novel solution to an age-old problem of dividing personal property that may be commercially worthless but emotionally priceless. According to the site, eDivvyup offers its services for $49.99 for the first 50 items and an additional 99 cents for each additional item listed. If you find yourself facing a King Solomon dilemma, eDivvyup may be just the solution.
Treated Like a Dog?
You may remember the surprising news that the late Leona Helmsley left a $12 million bequest in her will for her Maltese dog named Trouble. With the large bequest, Helmsley’s will provided that Trouble would continue to enjoy the same opulent life even after Helmsley’s passing. In addition to the money, Helmsely’s will also provided that Trouble would be buried next to Helmsley in the family mausoleum. Helmsely’s will also set aside an additional $3 million for cleaning and maintenance of the mausoleum. With the $12 million gift, Trouble was apparently the recipient of one of the largest single individual trusts from Helmsley’s fortune, estimated to be worth $4 billion.
Now it appears that poor Trouble will not receive the entire gift and have to survive on a mere $2 million. Helmsley’s grandchildren alleged that Helmsley was not mentally competent when she signed the 2005 will which left the large bequest to Trouble. According to this article in the New York Post, a Manhattan judge approved an agreement to reduce Trouble’s inheritance from $12 million to $2 million. Under the new deal, $10 million of Trouble’s bequest will go to Helmsley’s large charitable foundation.
It seems only appropriate that Leona Helmsley, dubbed by some as the “Queen of Mean” would have an equally controversial animal. According to a former housekeeper, Trouble slept in Helmsley’s bed and was fed chef-prepared meals in porcelain bowls and silver trays. This same housekeeper actually sued Helmsley for nerve damage she allegedly suffered after being repeatedly bitten by the animal. Trouble’s care taker estimated Trouble’s annual expenses at $190,000 including an estimated $100,000 for the dog’s security squad (which was apparently warranted because of the alleged death threats against Trouble). Given that Trouble is already nine years old, Trouble’s trustees did not oppose the settlement, apparently believing $2 million was adequate for Trouble’s care.
Can I Avoid Probate by Placing My Child on Title to my Assets?
In California, there are some very good reasons for avoiding the probate administration process. My three favorite reasons include (i) the cost; (ii) the time involved; and (iii) the public nature of the proceedings. For most estates, probate administration costs generally run from four to eight percent of the gross value of the estate and frequently take at least eight months to complete. To avoid these problems, some individuals engaged in what I affectionately refer to as ‘backyard’ estate planning. With respect to many assets, this involves using joint tenancy, which avoids the probate administration system (you can find a list of other probate avoidance devices here). Often I am asked whether this is a reasonable solution to avoid probate but avoid the cost of preparing an estate plan. In most circumstances, my answer to the question is a resounding “no”.
Under California law, joint tenancy includes what is referred to as the “right of survivorship” which means that when one tenant passes away, the asset transfers to the surviving tenant by operation of law. With a bank account, a surviving tenant can present a death certificate to the financial institution and remove the surviving tenant from the joint tenancy account. With real estate, the surviving tenant executes a form known as an affidavit of death of joint tenant which then places title solely in the name of the survivor. While these devices can work well with domestic partners or married couples (who are also bound by family law), they often fail when used with other parties such as children. In fact, using joint tenancy in these situations often creates more problems than it solves.
With respect to financial accounts, the decision to place another person on the account as a joint tenant grants an ownership interest in the entire account to the new joint tenant. The most obvious risk is that the new joint tenant has ownership over the entire account, and can clean it out almost immediately. While the original owner would have a legal claim against the new joint tenant under these circumstances, often you have to sue the joint tenant and find the missing assets before they will be returned (which is frequently challenging if not impossible in many cases). With respect to real estate, making such a transfer, unless accompanied by separate agreement, is frequently considered an irrevocable transfer. What this means is that if the original owner changes his or her mind about disposition, or wants to sell or refinance the property, the original owner will not be able to do so without the consent of the new tenant.
The Never Ending Will Contest
With a narrative that was sufficiently compelling to inspire a Hollywood movie, Melvin Dummar has returned and launched yet another legal challenge designed to obtain a portion of the estate of the late Howard Hughes. Dummar’s claim to a portion of the Hughes estate rests on his tale of being a Good Samaritan when he rescued a wandering Hughes from the Nevada desert in 1967.
Dummar, at the time a Utah service station owner, claimed that he picked up Howard Hughes along a desolate desert highway approximately 150 miles north of Las Vegas, Nevada. Hughes allegedly asked Dummar to take him to the Sands Hotel in Las Vegas and during the trip, Hughes revealed his identify to Dummar. After Hughes death, a handwritten will was discovered at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“LDS”) in Salt Lake City. The new will (commonly referred to as the “Mormon Will”) was allegedly prepared in 1968 and had a number of strange discrepancies including the fact that it left money to the LDS (Hughes had never been a member), named a dismissed former employee as executor and referred to Hughes’ famous flying boat by the term “spruce goose”, a moniker Hughes allegedly despised. Most importantly for Dummar, the Mormon Will left 1/16th of Hughes’ estate to Dummar. In June 1978, after a lengthy trial, the Mormon Will was ruled a forgery by a Nevada jury and Dummar received nothing from the Hughes estate.
The Latest Service: a Virtual Safe-Deposit Box?
One frequent issue that arises in both estate planning and estate administration is effective communication. Many individuals are concerned that their beneficiaries will not find their estate plan, asset accounts or important confidential information after their death. Often these individuals don’t want to share their confidential information with their beneficiaries while they are alive, but are concerned that their beneficiaries will not find the information after their death. Conversely, I have encountered numerous heirs and beneficiaries (usually administering probate estates) who are concerned that they might not have located all of the decedent’s assets or accounts.
One company, iGoodBye.com, has harnessed the power of the internet to create a novel solution to the problem of communicating confidential financial information after your death. At iGoodbye, the user creates a private account which can store copies of estate planning documents, financial accounts, passwords and other private, personal information. The user is provided with a password that will allow his or her beneficiaries to access the private information only after the users’ death (your death is verified with a death certificate). The user is given the security of knowing that all of their information is stored in one central location but accessible by their beneficiaries only after their passing. Essentially, the service appears to be a virtual safe-deposit box for your important estate documents. At this posting, iGoodBye.com service is $29.99 per year and the service can even be used without cost, if the user agrees to charge the annual cost to his or her beneficiaries following the users’ death.
Do You Know Who Will Receive Your Retirement Accounts?
One effective way of avoiding probate is to make use of financial accounts that have a ‘pay-on-death’ feature. This feature, if used properly, allows you to avoid probate and distribute your assets directly to your heirs or loved ones as you designate. Upon your death, the beneficiary simply presents a death certificate to the financial institution and the assets can be paid directly to the beneficiary without having to incur the costs, or experience the delays, of probate administration. But when using these convenient devices, there is always one thing you must keep in mind:
Do you know who your beneficiaries are?
In one case, a son reviewed his late father’s affairs only to discover that his father had only one substantial asset: an IRA account. When reviewing the IRA account, the son discovered for the first time that he was not named as the beneficiary. Who had his father named as his beneficiary? The father’s ex-girlfriend. Worse yet, it was an ex-girlfriend the father had not seen, or had any contact with, for approximately 15 years. It was unlikely that his father wanted to leave this money to his ex-girlfriend and exclude his son but by failing to review his beneficiary designations, this is exactly what happened.
