Litigation in High Net Worth Trusts, with Attorney Nick Van Brunt

0:02 Welcome to Probate Weekly. I'm really excited to have again a guest we've had before, Nick Van Brunt, who is a high net worth litigation attorney with Sheppard Mullin here in Southern California. And we're really excited to talk about kind of what happens when we go wrong. You know, you can have the best plan in the world, but you can't plan for everything or avoid everything. So, Nick, thank you for coming back on Probate Weekly.

0:23 Hey Bill, thanks for having me again. It's always a pleasure. It's good to see you. One of the common cases I get involved with is that there's a change, new will, a new trust, an amendment done often times by somebody who's related. I know you had a case recently with somebody. Can you talk a little bit about some of the dangers or situations that people need to be aware of when they, you know, have spouses or, you know, relationships and how they can com- complicate things in the trust and the inheritance situation.

0:51 Well, yeah. I mean, but for but for second spouses and blended families, my practice would be much smaller. I mean, it definitely, you know, lends itself to these types of disputes. So, you know, I Well, I'll just start with a story. So, I just I just got out of a trial. I was in trial over the course of 3 weeks in Palm Springs. without getting too much into the details, it was a same-sex marriage. both spouses are still alive, but the older spouse is in conservatorship. We represented the younger spouse. And there was a caregiver that was in- involved for years. And, you know, there's a question as to where the lines blurred between caregiver and, you know, maybe more unclear. Right? That never really ended up coming out at trial, but, you know, there are issues that come up on both sides. So, if you have a caregiver that is taking care of, you know, your older parent or grandparent or what have you, there are a fair amount of protections under the law, which helped us in this case. And one of the protections is that a paid caregiver, there is a presumption under the law that that caregiver, if they receive a gift from their person they're taking care of, who's either an elder or dependent adult that that gift is the product of either undue influence or fraud, unless they can prove by clear and convincing evidence, which means more than just 50/50, but like it has to be clear and convincing, right? As it says.

2:23 They have to disprove there was undue influence. Unless the lawyer gets what another lawyer to sign something called a certificate of independent review. So, this other lawyer meets with the older adult or the dependent adult and says, "Hey, you want to give this gift to the caregiver?" and makes a determination as to whether or not the older person is being unduly influenced and has capacity and all that. And if you get that letter, then that burden of proof issue goes away, so that the caregiver's gift is no longer presumed to be ill-gotten. the issue that we had in this case was really interesting because there was a certificate, well the debate as to whether there was a certificate of independent review or not, but even assuming that there was it didn't apply to the gifts explicitly that were given to the caregiver. But so, there was a fight over whether or not that that evidence would come into play. Anyway, we settled, so you know, but after eight days of trial. So, the moral of the story is if you're going to go through the exercise of trying to protect your estate plan on the one hand make sure you do it the right way, because there's a lot of traps for the unwary in there.

3:40 We've had attorneys in the other episodes talk about the independent letters, and so it's interesting what you're what I think I hear you saying, which is that letter will clearly work for the validity of the trust, meaning you that the that the trustee has capacity to execute the trust at that time. But, you're saying there's another standard potentially, I guess it can be debated, as to okay, well, the trust is good, but this did they really know that particular feature, in this case a gift to a caregiver? And so, I would imagine an attorney doing their job on the independent letter would specifically go through the distribution and want to confirm those items.

4:20 Right. And in this instance, like he didn't know about the estate planning letter didn't know about the gift. So, there's no way he could have opined upon them, right? But, yeah, I mean, so if, you know, you're going through the trouble of getting those certificates of independent review, you want to make sure that you've identified every, you know, you want to it the statute the statute it's Probate Code Section 21384. The statute, you know, sets for what the form should look like, and it's pretty generic. But, I think if you want to make sure it applies, you want to be a little more specific. That would That would be my view if I were trying to protect an estate plan.

4:57 Good insight. So, And this is an increasing area, the idea that people getting older, capacity issues, and blended families all kind of converge, and that most of this care is now being done privately rather than publicly, all these kind of converge at once into create this toxic mess of probate litigation because you know, we don't have clarity and you don't have specific processes, that's where these things get fought out. One of the areas that I'm always surprised that people are surprised at, same-sex marriages will often say that they thought that their relationship was the same as a different-sex marriage, I guess that's the term. Traditional marriage, let's say.

5:41 Right. but, even traditional marriage necessarily, under the law, there's certain protections they have, but it doesn't cover everything on a probate case. Meaning traditional spouse will probably inherit absent anything else, but that doesn't mean they get child spousal support. That doesn't mean they get beyond that. and that's whether you're traditional marriage or a same-sex marriage, correct? Doesn't have any lesser

6:09 In California, I don't think that's true actually. I think in California you get all the same rights and spousal Right. Right. same rights and you don't get any extra rights and I think that's the thing that So just like just like a traditional marriage might not get certain rights. There's like I said prior marriage and kids from the prior marriage and the prior spouse. It's the same as a traditional marriage that same-sex It's not that it's not getting recognized as a marriage. It's that it does it doesn't have any additional rights. I think the other thing tell me if you see this. I also see that a lot of times the surviving spouse will say I was like a spouse, but they'd actually get married.

6:44 Sure. And traditional, you know, different sexes relationships where they could live together for 50 years, but they don't legally go through the process, they don't get the actual legal protections. I think people assume that maybe you're subject to spousal support based on some, you know, case from 40 years ago, but it doesn't really apply to probate case. If you're not married, you're not going to get the rights of a of a spouse.

7:06 Yeah, there's no there's no common law marriage in California for example, right? So and that that's the case whether it's same-sex or opposite sex, you know, marriage whatever. I mean that that's that's the case, but it's interesting. in terms of probate, you're right. So for example, if there's no estate plan that's done, right? And you're left to intestate succession. If you're not a spouse, it doesn't matter that you lived with that person for 50 years. You're not going to inherit under just the laws of California because basically what intestate succession meaning succession when there's not a will.

7:44 Right. That comes into play basically as a gap filler, right? The legislature is doing its best to figure out, well, this is This is the way we're going to distribute this estate because we don't have any guidance.

7:54 Right. And unfortunately, for the couple that's been together for their whole life but didn't get married, if you don't have those estate planning documents, yeah, you're going to have problems. Now, there are other things that are out there, you know, there's what's called a Marvin claim, right? So, you can claim at least that you have a quasi I don't know if this is the right term, but like a quasi community interest in the estate, you might be able to get some benefit from that, but yeah, best thing to do, obviously, is to do the estate planning in the first place to if you're not going to get married, you know, just to make sure that your long-term partner and look, there's people who don't want to get married, right? I mean, and that's fine, you know, not everybody believes in marriage, but then if you want to make sure that the person you've been with is going to benefit from your estate, you got to yeah, pay the $2, get the estate

8:40 Right. Especially now that we made the law that [unclear] get married, then there's really no there's no legal excuse. I mean, I guess it All these relationships are difficult. I don't mean to minimize it, but like you say, if they want to get married, they can get married and the law will give them all the protections. If they don't get married, and to me, this is kind of like a trust that doesn't get signed. On one hand, we assume, oh, he was a bonehead, he didn't sign it. Well, maybe he regretted some changes in there or wasn't ready to pull the trigger, and that's why he didn't sign it or wasn't ready to have the conversation to get it to sign. And sometimes we assume that, yet it's not necessarily their assumption that they would sign the documents, but they are, you know, hesitant for whatever reason.

9:22 Right. Yeah, I mean, that's that's, you know, and that's why you have a lot of lawyers in these cases, right? I mean, Right. Yeah, if a if a document's not signed, or, you know, I've got you have a situation with like a video recording. A recording is not a will, right? Under the law right now, but what is the evidentiary value of that? I've actually got that case coming right now. So, that's an interesting one, but yeah, it's The way to avoid all of that, or at least minimize those disputes, is to just get the plan done in the appropriate way. Now, that's not going to get you out necessarily from, as we've talked about in the past, I mean, you know, lack of capacity, lack, you know, or undue influence, or fraud, or forgery, all those types of claims, you know, people can always bring claims, but you know, if you have a robust no contest clause, it can help in certain instances to protect against that, but no matter what, you're you're always going to be better off having an estate planning instrument that is signed that complies with the law, you know, and protecting what you want to do.

10:23 You know, I do think it's one of the biggest misconceptions, though, is, and people say, "Well, in estate planning, you avoid litigation." And the answer is, "No." You might You might limit [unclear] litigation, or you might strengthen your hand when you go to litigation, but it seems to me if there's enough money on the table, somebody's going to litigate something. Is that a fair assessment?

10:44 To happen, sure. Sure. you know, any situation there's a zero to 100% chance, [laughter] somewhere between zero and 100% chance of litigation, right? What you're It's not litigation avoidance, it's it's litigation minimizing, right? You want to create disincentives to go into litigation in the first place, right? and so, that's why where you do the more protective your estate plan is, and the more robust it is, and the more you've done to try to show that this is really what this person intended of their own free will, then, you know, the you're you're going to create more barriers to somebody coming in and fighting it. But as you said, if there's enough money there, who knows? You know, and sometimes, you know, the standard's pretty low. The standard is pretty low to be able to overcome even a disinheritance clause. So, in California, like all you need is to demonstrate that you had probable cause. Does not mean that you're likely to succeed. It means that basically, I mean, depends on, you know, the judge that's interpreting it, but it basically, you know, is it frivolous? You know, is there some basis for it, right? I mean, that's that's kind of the standard. So, it's pretty rare that you will actually see someone these days disinherited under a no contest clause, which you know, it's because there's a lot of gray area usually in these cases.

12:14 Yeah. you know, I recently had an attorney from another state, who advised his clients that they should restate their trust minimum 10 years, probably 5 years, even if nothing's changed. for if for no other reason, I would think well, because the law's changed, but he said, "No, that might be true, but more because it restates your intent, and that establishes a pattern that if every 5 years you know, sought to lower the inheritance for one child, or raise it for another child, or whatever the give the gift to the charities, if you do it every 5 years four or five times, the court's going to say, "Well, that was his intent, and then this other document that came out of the blue seemed to be in operation." Is that a fair statement that that's going to give some more evidence, or is that just Yeah, I think to protect against that last scenario, yeah, I think that's helpful, right? So, if you know, it's like one of these things is not like the other,

13:09 [laughter] you know? So, if you've got a pretty consistent plan, and then it suddenly deviates, then that's a good way to protect against that happening. I will say that if you have too many amendments and too many restatements, it also begs the question, you know, why you what did he really intend, or what did she really intend? They're they're making changes every 6 months, every 3 months, right? I've had cases that have had 36 trust amendments, you know, and it's like you know, you can sort of argue both sides of that. So, but as a general practice that makes sense. Also, there's a reason in California and probably in other states to do the restatements every so often and the reason is that when the settlor, you know, the creator of the trust dies, and the trustee has to give notice to all the heirs and beneficiaries, which you have to do, you only have to upon request provide the last full restatement of the trust. So, if there's a full restatement, you know, and it's the fifth one, you don't have to provide any of the prior documents to comply with the law. Now, it may be prudent to provide the earlier instruments for various reasons. Sometimes it may not be prudent and that's going to be case-by-case, but that's another reason to just do a full restatement as opposed to just amendments cuz if you're just amending the original trust, then all those amendments have to be provided as well as the original trust.

14:39 Excuse me, this is where a attorney who is seasoned with the pitfalls of litigation is important and how to administer the trust because, like you say, it varies case-by-case. I can imagine there cases that you want to disclose everything right away and get the clock running as quick as you can. There's other ones where you want to give a minimum amount because you know they're going to litigate and you don't want to give them you know, to play your cards early if you don't have to. and I think this is where having somebody that's knowledgeable to avoid these things is important. Whereas, you know, a do-it-yourselfer you go to chat GPT and it says, "Oh, distribute everything and transparency is good." Well, it could be good, but it also could work against you and so this is where I think having good advice is important. What are you know, you obviously had some pretty big litigation cases. What are one or two of the most common mistakes that you see made that you go, "there's just no reason for us to be litigating but for this mistake." What are one or two of the most common things that you see?

15:32 Yeah, before I answer that, by the way, just on the ChatGPT thing, what an amazing tool AI is. Don't put any confidential information into seriously, because all you're doing is you're you're helping that AI to obviously develop based on your own confidential information. And so, if you put, for example, an email that you want to send to your attorney or something else that you want to keep private, that there's no expectation of privacy. There's there's no privilege.

16:01 Right. And that. So, just you know, it's something that it's going to become a real issue to me. It's heating up that one. That's one that whole thing with the litigation is just beginning. Attorneys are starting to figure this out as a whole class of activity.

16:16 Yeah. most common mistakes I see, you know, [sighs] this is a tough one because it's counterintuitive. I don't know if I've talked about this with you before, but if not, it's worth repeating. It almost is never a good idea to videotape the signing ceremony or [snorts] the you know, to videotape the intent of the settlor. It's counterintuitive because you think like, "Okay, I'm going to get that person on camera. They're going to be forceful. They're going to say, 'This is what I want,' etc." You could be creating your own like hostage video.

16:56 Yes. [laughter] Yes. and you're giving people an opportunity to dissect and, you know, create questions. Now, you know, I suppose there are some instances where it can be helpful. I've seen it generally only work against the proponent of the instrument to have the video. Typically. And so, I would generally counsel against that. That that seems to be something that's repeated. The other, you know, the other issue that I that I see coming up a lot is a misunderstanding. This isn't really a mistake that people make, but just a misunderstanding A misunderstanding of what the threshold of capacity is, the ability to make a decision. It's generally a pretty low threshold, right? So, you may not be able to balance a checkbook, you may, you know, lose your keys every day. Shoot, I lose my keys once a week, so maybe I can't do estate planning, but, you know, you could you could be forgetful and all that, but if you know this is who my family is, these are generally the things I own, and I understand what the point of a will is, you know, it's to give stuff away when I'm dead.

18:19 That's capacity, right? So, if you can formulate And it's not like you have to constantly have that ability. The question is whether you had that ability when you signed the documents, right?

18:29 Right. And so, a lot of times you'll hear, "Oh, you know, so-and-so lacked capacity because I saw this, that, or the other thing, and, you know, they forgot, you know, my son's name, or they forgot, you know, what day it was, or whatever." Like, that could be helpful in this issue, but that's not like that doesn't mean automatically that they lack capacity. Could be a, you know, could be a basis to bring a contest. It could give you probable cause, you know, but it might not carry the day, right? And a lot of the times that's going to be determined by medical records and, you know, experts. So, I see that people sort of overstating the case that somebody lacked capacity. And then on the flip side, people overstating the case that this is exactly what grandma wanted. You know, I took grandma to the office and she was able to talk to the to the lawyer. Yeah, I found the lawyer for her, but you know, she

19:27 Yeah, he's my friend down the street and we [laughter] so, you know, it goes kind of both ways. You know, and yeah, those are those are a couple of the things I see commonly lately.

19:39 The undue influence I see is more commonly a will where they buy a will at Office Depot and they go down to the notary at the FedEx office and you know, the way I see going to turn his the caregiver is I that I've seen who become girlfriends so all of a sudden they're they're careful not to use the word caregiver. Oh yeah, I was taking care of them, but I wasn't really the caregiver. I was the girlfriend.

19:59 Yeah. Sure, I was giving money, but they were gifts that just happened to be Exactly. because the taxes were being taken out of it. Yeah, I mean Yeah, that that is a really interesting area that I think that you know, I it'd be really interesting to see more cases go up to the court of appeal on this and more decisions where the use of affection by caregivers as a tool of undue influence. I've had a couple cases that have involved both resolved before court. but they it's a it's an interesting thing. I mean, I think that there absolutely is a way that caregivers can do that, right? They can use, you know, affection in the to blur the lines to get to get gifts. On the flip side, you know, there is the like, "Hey, you know, so-and-so should be so-and-so wants an attractive caregiver that's 50 years younger than them and wants to get married to them, you know."

21:02 And the kids are never around, you know, I mean, I get it. The kids are never around, they live in other states, they're busy with their lives. Can be surprising if he falls in love with some Yeah.

21:12 Right. So, it can cut both ways and that's why you have the burden of proof issue and the certificate of independent review, right? Because on the one hand, you really do want to protect people from being taken advantage of and I think you know, California is and a lot of other states have like recognized that this is a real problem. On the other hand, it's not an it's not an absolute bar. If you can prove it or if you can get an attorney to sign off on it, you know, there's there's a process by which, you know, we prevent like sort of this one-size-fits-all moralistic view around it, you know. At the end of the day, we've got freedom of contract, got, you know, all of that as well. So.

21:49 So and that's a kind of business question, I think, more than legal, which is as a real estate agent and you know, let's say some people watch this are real estate agents. We have attorneys as well. I'm I'm sure they have the same question, which is people come to them, they're wronged. I can't help them. I'm not an I'm not attorney. I can understand the concerns. I can see the pattern, the fact pattern. Whatever. Maybe it's obvious. They went to opposite people, got a will, notarized it, made no sense and all of a sudden, five properties changed hands. I see that that happens.

22:20 Sure. But I'll say to them that, you know, litigation is extremely expensive. Meaning once if you can follow probate and get the court to agree with you, that's one thing. But if you have to file and object and the other side lawyers up and they're the ones with the money or they have the money at hand, perhaps. You know, I generally advise clients that if you're going to go to court, you better have about $100,000 to get to a point of decision, probably. And you better or if it's contentious, you better have about 100 about a million dollars at risk that you can win, that attorney sees a likelihood of payoff. Are those numbers for numbers my too low or is that too high or how would you how would you recommend me as a real estate agent advise you protect prospective clients before they call you. Hey, this isn't a couple hundred dollar a consult necessarily. This is really you know, real money if you're going to go after this.

23:13 Yeah, I mean, good luck taking a case all the way to trial for a hundred grand these days. you know, it's it's even you know, even with lower priced attorneys. I mean, it's just expensive to take a case to trial. Now, most cases resolve before trial, right? So there's that. But even the cost of a good mediator, right? So you know, if you're if you're going to go to a mediation. So mediation is short of trial, it's non-binding. It's an effort to resolve things usually with a retired judge, sometimes a lawyer. It's confidential, all that. That mediator is still going to cost 10 grand plus paying for your lawyer, plus, you know, the briefing that goes into it ahead of time. I mean, it's it's expensive. on the contingency front, I mean yeah, you're probably right. I mean, I think if it's I think there are people who take contingency matters for less than a million dollars at stake, for sure, but you know, the quality is somewhat can be commensurate with that and the amount of work you're going to put in when you're upside is capped. You know, I think for I mean, we don't really do contingency matters, but you know, for those who do like I can see that being a problem. So yeah, I think that that that's about right. You know, you're going to have hard a hard time finding a good I would think a contingency lawyer under for a matter that's under a million. And a lot of times they'll take up to 40%. I will tell you one thing that I do see and I've seen it a couple of times now and I find it pernicious is there are contingency lawyers who will come in and see that a beneficiary is entitled to some fixed sum under a trust.

24:55 And there may be some issue that they don't like who the trustee is and the trustee is taking in their mind too long to make a distribution or what have you. And the lawyer will come in and cuz this and this beneficiary doesn't have any money, right? And the lawyer will say, "Well, that's okay. I'll do it on a contingency basis and I'll just take a percentage of what you receive from the trust." They were going to get that anyway. Maybe it was delayed, but then here you go, this lawyer is coming in and taking 25, 30, 40%. That that that I really hope people are aware of is I have a big problem with that and I've seen people trying to do that.

25:33 I see that in both ways though cuz I also see people the beneficiary who has no money at all. Yeah. And I'm and I've I've a matter right now where I'm involved with some property for trust where it's been like 10 years and basically all the trustee did was just milk the estate. There's several properties are facing foreclosure. They could have been lost entirely. He's taken out millions of dollars of lease payments and rents and expenses. And the beneficiaries have seen nothing all these years that I mean I these are tough decisions. I think yes, we can always look at a attorney and say, "Oh, you're charging too much." It's easy to say, but there are attorneys who don't make that much money take these cases reluctantly or mistakenly find themselves over their heads cuz it can be a lot of work for a little and so that's a You're right, but that's a tough one. That's a tough decision.

26:20 It's a tough one, but I think in the scenario you're talking about there are other options that are available, right? So there are litigation funders that are out there that will take on these types of cases. You can get if you have an inheritance that is expected there are you know, you can get probate funders as well. Right, so that yeah, maybe that'll be an exorbitant interest rate and that's its own problems. But ultimately I feel pretty strongly that you should not be paying someone 40% of money that you're supposed to get anyway, right? Like that there's no real dispute that you're supposed to get it anyway. It's just as to the timing. And so, that that's what I've seen people being preyed on, you know, to be perfectly honest.

27:06 Yeah. Yeah. yeah, I mean I hear you. It's It's interesting cuz I said I've been on both sides of that one. I've seen it Like I had I had a client who was I mean I don't know what you call her mental capacity. She was a drug addict. I mean she literally was a system of meth head. And she was entitled to like half of a house that's worth about $80,000. And she just would panic and call me every day and I you know, try to be sympathetic and help people. And we actually ended up paying an attorney even though she was a beneficiary just to write shotgun. I said to her, "I know that you don't you wouldn't normally do this and this is seen sometimes as being excessive, but this is what she wants. And if you want to do it on a we advanced money to pay her fees. I said, "This is what she wants and she'll sleep at night knowing that you're fighting for her and she won't sleep at night. maybe she's psycho, but she is psycho and

27:54 Sure. That's a different situation completely. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, no, that's good on you for doing that. But that's a different situation. Yeah, I mean I think that look, I do think that there is often times an asymmetry, you know, between the trustee who's controlling the funds

28:13 Right. of the trust and the beneficiaries who can't afford to you know, I mean that that does that is out there for sure. but I just think there are other ways to deal with that beyond just giving up 40% of your inheritance, you know.

28:28 Right. One of the things I've seen that leads to litigation on bigger trusts is when they appoint the trustee like the wrong trustee successor trustee. And you know, cuz my world's real estate. So, I see a lot of these where it's a portfolio. The decedent was a real estate expert. He knew that niche. It's usually one geography, one type of product, either it was industrial or it was commercial, it was multi-family. He knew that area of Commerce City or Vernon or whatever it was. He was the best at that. He passes, all that knowledge goes with him, and now you have a family member who's supposed to step in and take over. And I always feel like that's where you need a professional fiduciary. Yes, the attorney will help you all the legal stuff, but there's a lot of non-legal stuff that's over the capacity of most people I deal with, and yet they're so hesitant because they look at the fee and say, "Wow, that's a lot of money." In my experience, that saves them more money than they pay by five or 10 times. What's your experience on bringing in professional fiduciaries, particularly when there's complicated states with real estate or something like that, or business?

29:37 I You know, it's case by case, but I'm more often than not, I think you are better off if you the typical situation where parents die and there's two or more siblings, you know, two or more in the next generation. If you put one of them in charge, you are setting them up to get me or my colleagues involved, you know, because it's just the dynamics, the emotional dynamics, whether or not that trustee is doing a good job or not. Somebody's going to complain about something and what have you. so I agree with you on that. And frankly, things get even when there's not that dynamic, it's Yeah. Some trusts are complicated in getting a real good licensed fiduciary to manage things works out well. I do see sometimes other people who work in quasi fiduciary industries who don't really serve as trustees. I'm thinking of like accountants or financial managers who get named as trustees, and that can work, you know, and sometimes it doesn't, right? Because it is a different skill set. You have to be kind of be a good trustee, you got to be able to know what you know and know what you don't know, you know, and be able to reach out to expertise for the stuff you don't know because you're supposed to fiduciary is a high standard, you're supposed to treat Yeah, it's it's the highest duty of care, there really is out there.

31:03 I think they seem to have the best Rolodex of anybody that I come across. They know somebody who does everything. It's really as a profession when I've You know, I've been learning a lot more about lately, so

31:13 Yeah, that's for sure. It's a good it's, you know, it's it's it's a tough industry, you know, to be a professional fiduciary, but you know, it can be really rewarding, too. You can really help some people through some difficult times, so it's it's it's there's there's worse things to do.

31:29 Well, speaking of helping people, you've been a big help by going a little bit over our allotted time here. I want to be mindful of our of your time commitment. Nick Van Brunt is attorney with Sheppard Mullin. Make sure you're a partner. And you're also the co-leader, I think, of the private wealth department or division or practice group.

31:44 Yeah, the team the team, so private wealth services team. Yeah. For more information on him, you go to the web the website sheppard.com and find him personally. As well, we have the contact information down below, the phone number as well as his email address. And if you need some help with that, feel free to reach out to me directly for listening to this on audio or whatever. Nick, thank you so much. I always learn so much when we talk to you. You've been a big help on our podcast. Thank you for your time today.

32:06 Hey, Bill, and I always you always ask me some questions and make me think that I think I have anything thought about same way, so it's it's always a pleasure. Thank you for having me. Thanks so much. And for the rest of you, this is Probate Weekly. We get together every week with an attorney in probate litigation, trust administration, trust litigation. I think we had a top one today. Hope you learned some learned some things, took some notes there. If I can help any way, please reach out at Bill Gross Probate on social media. As always, make today your best day ever.