Thompson

Thompson v. Lindop

Good Law
119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 42·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 3469·2002 Daily Journal DAR 4257·97 Cal. App. 4th 990·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3418
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 28, 2002No. H022305California7,758 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Bamattremanoukian, J.

C. J. Thompson appeals from a judgment after a court trial in a probate matter in which the court held that a trust instrument from which Thompson had benefited was void pursuant to Probate Code section 21350. 1 Section 21350, subdivision (a)(6) (hereafter section 21350(a)(6)) provides that any instrument that makes a donative transfer to a “care custodian of a dependent adult” is invalid. Thompson was the beneficiary of a trust executed by Láveme Shinkle. Shinkle had resided *993 in a skilled nursing facility for almost three years. During most of that time, Thompson was the long-term-care ombudsman for the facility. The definition of a “care custodian” who is prohibited from receiving a donative transfer under section 21350(a)(6) includes a long-term-care ombudsman. Thompson claims the trust was valid because he was no longer Shinkle’s ombudsman when she signed the trust. Thompson had been transferred to another facility six months before the trust was executed. In addition, Shinkle was discharged from the facility a month and a half before she signed the trust.

We hold that an ombudsman remains a “care custodian” within the contemplation of section 21350(a)(6) even…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.