Your state’s pack. New issues arrive periodically on Mondays. Bookmark it. I built this for the California T&E solo who knows the California Probate Code cold but still loses an afternoon a week hunting the current homestead number, the Medi-Cal (ALW / HCBA) long-term-care posture, whether the latest State Bar of California ethics guidance changes how you scope an engagement, or whether a recent California Court of Appeal decision just moved the law on capacity, undue influence, or a trustee’s duties. What’s below is what mattered in California lately — the week’s developments and the recent rulings from the bench.
For licensed attorneys. This pack is general legal information and professional commentary for practicing attorneys — it is not legal advice, does not apply to any specific matter, and creates no attorney-client relationship. Verify every authority against the cited primary source before relying on it with a client. Published by Mike Moss, a Utah-admitted attorney, as an AI-enablement information product; it is not an offer of legal services and is not a representation that the author is admitted to practice in your jurisdiction.
Three developments from the last several weeks that I think actually matter to a California T&E solo. Each one has a read that lands on your practice specifically — and each one comes with the citation so you can verify the detail yourself before you use it with a client.
Per DHCS, after eliminating the asset test on Jan. 1, 2024, California reinstated the non-MAGI (including long-term-care) Medi-Cal asset limit effective Jan. 1, 2026 at $130,000 per individual, plus $65,000 per additional household member. Transfers made Jan. 1, 2024–Dec. 31, 2025 are not counted at the 2026 renewal (ACWDL 25-18).
For a California solo, this reverses two years of asset-test-free planning and is the change to lead every 2026 Medi-Cal conversation with. The $130,000 limit is back, so spend-down and asset-structuring analysis returns — but the 2024–2025 transfer grace is a genuine planning window: transfers made in that period are not counted at the 2026 renewal. Re-screen every client who planned around the no-asset-test rule.
Cal. DHCS — Asset Limit Changes for Non-MAGI Medi-Cal (eff. Jan. 1, 2026; ACWDL 25-18) · dhcs.ca.gov · asset limit changes
Per the chaptered bill, AB 2016 (effective Jan. 1, 2025) raised the Petition to Determine Succession threshold for a decedent’s primary residence from $184,500 to $750,000 (Cal. Prob. Code §§ 13150–13157); the general small-estate-affidavit threshold (Prob. Code §§ 13100–13101) is $208,850 for deaths on or after Apr. 1, 2025, set by the Judicial Council’s triennial adjustment under § 890 and next due Apr. 1, 2028.
For a California solo, this materially widens the no-full-probate path: a primary residence worth up to $750,000 can now move by petition to determine succession rather than full administration, and the general small-estate-affidavit ceiling stands at $208,850 (up from $184,500 for deaths before Apr. 1, 2025). Re-check your intake triage — matters you would have routed to full probate under the old $184,500 figure may now qualify for the streamlined route.
Cal. AB 2016 (2023–2024 Reg. Sess.), Prob. Code §§ 13150–13157 · leginfo.legislature.ca.gov · AB 2016 · Judicial Council of Cal., Prob. Code § 890 adjusted amounts · courts.ca.gov · § 890 table
Per the State Bar, its “Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative AI in the Practice of Law” was updated (approved May 14, 2026) to address agentic AI, and proposed Rules of Professional Conduct amendments on AI are out for public comment.
For a California solo, this is the current in-state ethics frame for AI-assisted work, and it now reaches agentic tools that take actions on your behalf — not just text generators. Read the updated guidance against your workflow, watch the proposed RPC amendments because they may harden guidance into rule, and keep verification of output and confidentiality of inputs as your baseline regardless of which tool you use.
Cal. State Bar — Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative AI in the Practice of Law (approved May 14, 2026) · calbar.ca.gov · Generative AI guidance
Decisions that bind a California practitioner — California’s appellate courts and the federal courts covering California, including the U.S. Ninth Circuit — read for what actually changes how you draft, advise, and plan. Trusts and estates broadly, not Medicaid alone: wills and capacity, undue influence, fiduciary duty, trust construction, and estate recovery. One read, the holding, and the official cite.
An elderly settlor and her husband held an irrevocable trust whose main assets were two condominium units — they lived in one and rented the other. After the husband died, the settlor purportedly signed an amendment naming her niece successor trustee and then a notice of resignation. Her son petitioned to invalidate both instruments, alleging dementia and manipulation, and added a financial elder abuse claim and a request for a constructive trust: the niece had allegedly diverted the rental income, let the occupied unit fall into foreclosure, and sold the other unit below market, keeping the proceeds. A guardian ad litem appointed for the settlor recommended surcharging roughly $229,838 and, because the niece had been denied a bond, asked the probate court to authorize clouding title on three properties she owned personally as security. The court authorized it. On direct appeal the niece argued the order was appealable under Probate Code § 1300(a) and (c) as one encumbering property and instructing a fiduciary. The Court of Appeal disagreed and dismissed: Probate Code § 1004 expressly authorizes use of the lis pendens statutes, those more specific provisions govern, and Code Civ. Proc. § 405.39 makes a writ petition within twenty days the exclusive remedy. Treating the appeal as a writ petition would not have saved it — it was untimely.
Two things, and the deadline is the one that will hurt someone. If a probate court clouds title to your client’s personal real estate as security for a potential surcharge, the clock is twenty days and the vehicle is a writ — the familiar Probate Code § 1300 appeal list will not rescue you, because § 1004 pulls the lis pendens statutes in and the specific beats the general. Calendar it the day the order issues. The other half is the opportunity. Note what the guardian ad litem did here: faced with a former trustee who had been denied a bond and was holding what looked like trust money, he used the lis pendens machinery to reach her personal properties before a surcharge judgment existed. That is a real and underused remedy for a beneficiary watching assets move, and this decision confirms the Probate Code contemplates it.
Priel Grimberg v. Libby Pour, No. D085888 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist., Div. One, July 17, 2026) (certified for publication) — appeal dismissed. · COURTS.CA.GOV · official opinion
The Second District addressed the interaction between an omitted-spouse claim and a trust’s no-contest clause, reading the clause’s reach narrowly against forfeiture in the trust-contest context.
When advising surviving spouses weighing an omitted-spouse claim, map the specific no-contest language before counseling risk — the Second District will not stretch a clause beyond its text.
In re Tung Trust, 121 Cal. App. 5th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. June 9, 2026) · COURTS.CA.GOV · official opinion
A decade-long probate fight over a holographic will that placed a family insurance business and the home in trust for seven children ended with one stepson, Tom, disqualified from serving as executor. The probate court found he mismanaged Bodmann Insurance — an asset of the estate — by berating and bullying the decedent’s widow and issuing peremptory demands that collapsed cooperation and obstructed the client transfer the will directed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the disqualification under Probate Code §§ 8402(a)(3) and 8502(a), holding the conduct supported a finding of mismanagement and that disqualification lay within the trial court’s discretion.
For California fiduciary practice: ‘mismanagement’ justifying disqualification or removal under § 8502 is not limited to embezzlement or accounting failures — obstructive, hostile conduct that frustrates administration of an estate asset can qualify. Counsel a nominated executor that interpersonal warfare with co-fiduciaries or a surviving spouse over estate property is itself disqualifying, and that the appellate standard is deferential to the probate court. Where a closely-held business is an estate asset, paper the transition the will directs and avoid self-help.
Estate of Bodmann, No. A164552 (Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist., Div. 4, Oct. 28, 2025; certified for publication Nov. 21, 2025) — official California Courts published opinion.
This week in California for the T&E solo with Medi-Cal clients: the developments from the State Bar of California, the CLA Trusts and Estates Section, and DHCS (Medi-Cal) that actually moved your practice this period — each one primary-source verified.
Bar and Medicaid changes land on different schedules and aren't indexed by practice focus. Every item here was checked against its primary source, with the link, so you can verify before relying on it.