Keystone is pleased to highlight recent articles by Partners Joshua Taylor and Stefan O’Grady, published in the Daily Journal.
In his article, “Recovering Beneficiary Fees in Trust Disputes Under Smith v. Szeyller,” Taylor addresses the dynamics of multi-beneficiary litigation. He discusses how, in many cases, one beneficiary may take the lead while others remain on the sidelines, and how the Smith v. Szeyller decision highlights both the risks of inaction and the potential to recover fees for beneficiaries who actively participate.
“Trust litigation often involves uneven participation among beneficiaries, which can create real strategic and financial consequences,” said Taylor. “The Smith v. Szeyller decision highlights that stepping forward can not only shape the outcome of a dispute, but also open the door to recovering fees, which is something beneficiaries and counsel should evaluate early on.”
O’Grady’s article, “No-Contest Clauses Revisited: Enforceability, Trust Amendments and Trustee Defense Obligations,” examines California’s post-2010 statutory framework governing no-contest clauses. He explains how the addition of a “probable cause” requirement for direct contests has narrowed enforceability and reshaped how practitioners assess these clauses, as well as a trustee’s responsibilities when defending against trust contests.
“California’s no-contest framework became much more nuanced beginning in 2010,” said O’Grady. “Understanding how the probable cause standard applies and how it intersects with a trustee’s duty to defend is essential to evaluating risk and making informed decisions when disputes arise.”
Read Taylor’s article and O’Grady’s article (subscription required).
