Appellant trustee sought review of a decision of the Superior Court of Orange County
Procedural Posture
Appellant trustee sought review of a decision of the Superior Court of Orange County (California), which denied his petition for authority to change the designated succussor trustee of an irrevocable trust.
Overview
You will need to decide between 2 types of attorneys involved with lawsuits: trial attorneys los angeles and litigators los angeles. Appellant trustee filed a petition for authority to change the designated successor trustee of an irrevocable trust. Appellant's petition was denied on the grounds that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the trust. On appeal, the court reversed and held that it was evident that the trial judge did not consider the effect or the application of the probate code with regard to the proceeding. The court held that Cal. Prob. Code §§ 15001, 15409, 17000, 17001, 17004, 17200 established ample basis for jurisdiction over the petition to modify the trust and authorized the trial judge to make modifications otherwise forbidden by the trust instrument, including a change in the designated successor trustee. The court determined that the matter satisfied the ripeness doctrine because a decision on the merits would not be an advisory opinion.
Outcome
The court reversed the decision of the trial court, which denied appellant trustee's petition for authority to change the designated successor trustee of an irrevocable trust. The court determined that state statutes provided the trial court with ample jurisdiction over the matter.
Procedural Posture
Appellant youth addiction interest group challenged the decision of the Alameda County Superior Court (California), which dismissed appellant's unlawful business practice against respondent retail store corporation action, brought pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 and Cal. Penal Code § 308(a).
Overview
Appellant youth addiction group brought an action on behalf of the general public for unlawful business practices against respondent retail store corporation and many others, pursuant to an unfair competition statute, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Appellant brought the action in the public interest as a private attorney general. Appellant alleged that respondent and the others sold cigarettes to minors in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 308(a). The court first sustained the demurrer of the other alleged violators without leave to amend and then did so for respondent. Appellant challenged only the dismissal as to respondent. On appeal the court reversed, holding that when an action to enforce another state law was brought pursuant to § 17200, the operative statute was § 17200, which allowed a private action to redress any unfair competition in violation of that statute, so that appellant had standing to sue under § 17200to enforce Cal. Penal Code § 308(a). The court found that the decision creating standing had been law for more than a decade and the legislature had ample time to limit it, if it chose to do so.
Outcome
The court reversed the order sustaining the demurrer and the judgment dismissing the action in favor of respondent retail store corporation because appellant youth addiction interest group had standing to sue under an unfair competition statute to enforce a penal code provision, as the unfair competition statute allowed a private action to redress any unfair competition in violation of it.