Except as provided in Sections 853 and 854, if the court is satisfied that a conveyance, transfer, or other order should be made, the court shall make an order authorizing and directing the personal representative or other fiduciary, or the person having title to or possession of the property, to execute a conveyance or transfer to the person entitled thereto, or granting other appropriate relief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
An order granting relief under\u00a0section 856\u00a0confers \u201cthe right to the possession of the property, and the right to hold the property, according to the terms of the order as if the property had been conveyed or transferred in accordance with the terms of the order.\u201d (\u00a7 857, subd. (b).)<\/p>\n
<\/h6>\n \u201c\u2018Section 856\u00a0clearly and unambiguously grants the probate court the power not only to order a conveyance or transfer to the person entitled to the property in question, but also to\u00a0grant other appropriate relief<\/em>.\u2019\u201d (Estate of Kraus<\/em>\u00a0(2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 103, 113\u2013114 [108 Cal. Rptr. 3d 760].)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nDouble Damages To Punish The Wrongful Taking Of Property In California Probate<\/h2>\n Section 859 of the California Probate Code states:<\/p>\n
If a court finds that a person has in bad faith wrongfully taken, concealed, or disposed of property belonging to a conservatee, a minor, an elder, a dependent adult, a trust, or the estate of a decedent, or has taken, concealed, or disposed of the property by the use of undue influence in bad faith or through the commission of elder or dependent adult financial abuse, as defined in Section 15610.30 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, the person shall be liable for twice the value of the property recovered by an action under this part. In addition, except as otherwise required by law, including Section 15657.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, the person may, in the court\u2019s discretion, be liable for reasonable attorney\u2019s fees and costs. The remedies provided in this section shall be in addition to any other remedies available in law to a person authorized to bring an action pursuant to this part.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Stacey argued that the California probate court misconstrued the double damages statute, specifically the phrase \u201ctwice the value of the property recovered.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Stacey argued that a petitioner cannot recover misappropriated property under section 856 and then also be awarded twice the value of the recovered property pursuant to section 859.<\/p>\n
How Do You Calculate Damages Under California Probate Code Section 859?<\/h2>\n The court looked at the plain language of section 859 and set forth a hypothetical:<\/p>\n
Assume a petitioner’s action under\u00a0section 850 et seq.\u00a0alleges the misappropriation of a diamond ring valued at $10,000. The probate court finds the petitioner is entitled to the ring and, pursuant to\u00a0section 856, orders that it be returned. The petitioner is then deemed to have \u201crecovered\u201d the property for purposes of\u00a0section 859\u2014even if the actual conveyance has yet to occur. (See\u00a0\u00a7 857, subd. (b).) If the petitioner can show the opposing party acted in bad faith, the probate court must impose a penalty under\u00a0section 859\u00a0because the statute says \u201cthe person shall be liable for twice the value of the property recovered.\u201d (Ibid.<\/span><\/em>) Consequently, the opposing party must return the ring\u00a0and<\/span><\/em>\u00a0pay $20,000.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nTherefore, the California Probate Code provides for the recovery of the actual property, plus twice the value of the recovered property.\u00a0 The obligation to return the property is established under California Probate Code 856.\u00a0 The liability is established under section 859, a punishment for culpable misconduct.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
California law allows for double damages in some probate litigation matters.\u00a0 In the March 2020 case of Estate of Ashlock, the California Fifth Appellate District issued an opinion certified for partial publication that clarified what \u201cdouble damages\u201d means under Section 859 of the California Probate Code. The Facts of Ashlock The Ashlock case has a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6290,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[4107],"yoast_head":"\n
Double Damages In California Probate Litigation<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n