A Heggstad petition can resolve a common issue that arises when assets that were intended to be held in a living trust remain titled in the decedent’s name at death. In Piedmont and throughout Alameda County, families face delays, added costs, and uncertainty when assets do not automatically pass to the trust as intended. This introduction explains what a Heggstad petition addresses, how it helps align property ownership with the trust maker’s plan, and why timely action matters to preserve estate values and honor the deceased person’s wishes with minimal disruption to beneficiaries.
Many people assume that creating a living trust completes the transfer of property, but gaps in title transfers or administrative steps can leave certain items outside the trust at the time of death. A Heggstad petition provides a legal process to have those assets treated as trust property for distribution purposes, avoiding a full probate for items that should have passed under the trust. This paragraph outlines the basic benefit: streamlining distribution, reducing administrative burden, and clarifying property ownership for heirs and trustees while working within California law.
When a trustmaker took steps to fund a trust but certain assets were never properly retitled, beneficiaries and trustees can encounter uncertainty and delay. A Heggstad petition asks the court to treat identified assets as if they were properly transferred into the trust, enabling distribution according to the trust’s terms. This avoids formal probate for those items, can reduce costs, and shortens the time families wait to receive property. The petition also creates a clear legal record to prevent future ownership disputes and supports an orderly administration of the trust estate under California procedures.
The Law Offices of Robert P. Bergman focuses on estate planning and trust administration matters serving clients in Piedmont, Alameda County, and the surrounding Bay Area. We prioritize careful document review, calm guidance, and practical solutions when trust-related issues arise after a loved one’s death. Our approach emphasizes clear communication with trustees and beneficiaries, thorough preparation of declarations and supporting evidence, and a commitment to resolving title problems efficiently through the appropriate court filings. We work to protect estate value and to implement the decedent’s intentions while minimizing family stress and delay.
A Heggstad petition is a focused legal request to a California court asking that certain property be treated as trust assets even though the title was never formally changed before the trustmaker’s death. This remedy commonly applies to deeds, bank accounts, or other assets that were clearly intended for the trust but remained in the decedent’s name. The petition requires evidence showing the intent to fund the trust and may include a copy of the trust documents, declarations from witnesses or attorneys, and supporting transfer paperwork. The process aims to align legal title with the trustmaker’s plan while avoiding a full probate for the affected property.
In practice, the Heggstad procedure is used when the trust administration team identifies specific items that were meant to be in the trust but are not listed as trust property. The trustee typically reviews records, attempts amicable resolution with financial institutions or title companies, and prepares a petition with documentary proof. The court then evaluates whether the evidence supports treating the assets as trust property for distribution. Successful petitions can permit prompt distribution under the trust, making this a valuable tool for trustees and families seeking to implement the decedent’s estate plan as intended.
At its core, a Heggstad petition requests that the probate court determine that specific property should be included in the trust despite a failure to complete formal transfer steps. The petition explains the circumstances that left the assets in the decedent’s name, provides evidence of intent to fund the trust, and asks the court to declare the property as subject to the trust provisions for distribution purposes. This legal declaration modifies how the estate is administered, allowing trustees to distribute the items according to the trust instead of through probate processes that would otherwise apply to assets owned by the decedent at death.
A successful Heggstad petition typically depends on documentation and clear factual proof of intent to place property in the trust. Supporting elements often include the trust document, beneficiary designations, correspondence or notes reflecting the trustmaker’s direction, declarations from the trustee or witnesses, and any transfer-related forms that were prepared but not recorded. The procedural steps involve preparing the petition, filing it with the appropriate court in the county where the decedent lived, providing notice to interested parties, and attending any required hearings. The court may then issue an order treating the property as trust assets for distribution.
Understanding common terms used in Heggstad petitions helps trustees and beneficiaries follow the process. Terms to know include what constitutes trust funding, the role of a pour-over will, the differences between probate and trust distribution, and the types of evidence courts consider when deciding whether to treat an asset as trust property. Clear definitions reduce confusion during administration and assist in preparing the documentation that supports a petition. This glossary section translates legal concepts into practical language for families navigating post-death property transfer matters.
A Heggstad petition is a court filing used in California to request that assets be treated as part of a decedent’s trust even though title was never formally changed into the trust before death. The petition presents evidence of intent to fund the trust and asks the court to declare the property subject to the trust’s distribution terms. It is designed to resolve isolated funding errors without requiring full probate for the items at issue, allowing trustees to distribute those assets according to the trust rather than through probate procedures that would otherwise apply.
A pour-over will is a testamentary document that directs any property remaining in the decedent’s name at death to be transferred into the decedent’s trust. While the pour-over will ensures that assets ultimately pass to the trust, it typically still requires probate administration for those items. When funding errors occur, a Heggstad petition can sometimes be used to treat those assets as if they had been properly placed in the trust during the decedent’s lifetime, which may avoid full probate for specific property and facilitate distribution under the trust’s instructions.
Trust funding refers to the process of transferring ownership of assets into the name of a living trust so that the trust holds legal title during the trustmaker’s lifetime. Proper funding typically involves retitling real estate, updating account ownership, and naming the trust as beneficiary where appropriate. Funding omissions occur when these steps are not completed, leaving assets in the decedent’s name. A Heggstad petition addresses such omissions by asking the court to treat those items as trust property for distribution purposes based on evidence of intent to fund the trust.
Probate is the court-supervised process for distributing assets that were owned by the decedent at death and not otherwise disposed of through a trust or beneficiary designation. Trust administration, by contrast, is the process by which a trustee manages and distributes trust assets pursuant to the trust document, often outside of court. When assets intended for a trust are left in the decedent’s name, a Heggstad petition can enable distribution under the trust and limit or avoid probate for those specific assets by creating a court record that they should be treated as trust property.
When property intended for a trust is not properly titled, trustees and families can consider several options. One path is to proceed through probate for the assets left in the decedent’s name, which adds time and court oversight. Another is to pursue a Heggstad petition to have the court treat specific items as trust property based on evidence of intent. In some cases informal resolution with financial institutions or title companies may work. This comparison helps decision makers weigh timeframes, costs, and the clarity each route provides for distributing the decedent’s property according to their wishes.
A limited approach may be suitable when the problem involves only a small number of assets or a single item that was clearly intended for the trust. In such cases, the trustee might present documentation directly to a bank, title company, or other holder to secure a transfer without court involvement. If institutions accept the evidence and transfer title quickly, the trustee can avoid filing a formal petition. This approach minimizes legal fees and court delay when the facts are straightforward and parties are cooperative about honoring the decedent’s plan.
When the decedent’s intent to fund the trust is supported by unambiguous documentation and no interested party objects, an informal correction may resolve the issue. Examples include transfers where the financial institution accepts a trust document with proof of death and identification, or where a title company will record a corrective deed based on clear evidence. Choosing this path can be efficient, but trustees should proceed carefully and preserve records in case a court determination is later needed to prevent disputes among beneficiaries.
A formal Heggstad petition is often appropriate when ownership is disputed or when beneficiaries question whether an asset should be part of the trust. The court process offers a binding resolution that establishes the status of the property for distribution and creates a clear record that can prevent later contest. Filing a petition can protect trustees from allegations of improper distribution and resolve competing claims in a structured, legal setting where evidence and declarations are assessed by the court before a definitive order is issued.
When asset histories are complicated, documents are missing, or institutions refuse to accept informal evidence of trust funding, a court petition ensures a lawful determination. A Heggstad filing provides a mechanism to present sworn declarations, evidence of intent, and other documentation to a judge who can issue an order resolving the funding issue. This comprehensive approach gives trustees definitive authority to distribute the property and reduces the risk of later legal challenges that could undo an informal transfer or leave the estate vulnerable to additional expense and delay.
Using a Heggstad petition to resolve funding errors provides a formal, judicial determination that the specified assets are trust property, which can bring finality and legal protection to trustees and beneficiaries. This approach helps prevent future disputes by documenting the court’s conclusion and can be particularly valuable when multiple heirs or institutions are involved. The court’s order supports trustee actions and reduces the chance of future litigation over the same assets, promoting efficient distribution and preserving estate value for intended recipients.
Another benefit of the comprehensive path is clarity for institutions that may otherwise refuse to act on informal documentation. A court order can compel transfer or confirm ownership status, making it easier for banks, title companies, and other holders to release or retitle property. Additionally, the formal process may reduce personal liability for trustees by providing judicial backing for distributions. For families seeking a decisive legal solution that aligns property ownership with the trustmaker’s plan, a Heggstad petition offers an effective and binding remedy.
A primary advantage of obtaining a court order is the finality it provides. When the court rules that specific assets are trust property, that determination creates a strong legal record that can prevent subsequent challenges to the distribution. This protection benefits trustees who must carry out the trust’s terms and beneficiaries who rely on receiving their inheritance promptly. By formalizing the status of the property, families gain certainty and reduce the risk of reopening the matter later, which preserves estate assets and minimizes emotional strain during the administration process.
Courts can provide the authoritative direction that financial institutions and title companies often require to release or retitle assets. A Heggstad order eliminates ambiguity about the asset’s status, making institutions more likely to comply with trustee requests promptly. This reduces administrative friction and can accelerate distribution to beneficiaries. When informal efforts stall, the judicial route reduces negotiation time and clarifies responsibilities, enabling trustees to complete the administration of the trust more efficiently and with documented legal authority backing their actions.
Start by collecting all documents related to the decedent’s estate and trust, including the trust instrument, deeds, account statements, beneficiary forms, correspondence with financial institutions, and any drafts of transfer documents. Complete records make it easier to show the trustmaker’s intent and often streamline either an informal correction or a formal petition. Careful organization saves time during trust administration, reduces the likelihood of overlooked assets, and strengthens the evidence necessary to support a Heggstad petition in court when a clear paper trail is required.
When institutions are unwilling to accept documentation or when there are competing claims to ownership, filing a Heggstad petition may be the most reliable way to obtain a definitive resolution. A court order provides legal authority for distribution under the trust and reduces exposure to later challenges. Although filing involves preparation and court procedures, the benefits of certainty and enforceability can outweigh the costs in complex or contested situations. Trustees should weigh the facts and proceed with the approach that best protects estate interests and beneficiary rights.
Families and trustees should consider a Heggstad petition when assets that should pass under the trust remain in the decedent’s name, especially if attempted informal transfers have been denied or ownership is disputed. The petition offers a means to align property title with the trustmaker’s intent and to enable distribution under the trust. It is particularly useful for reducing delays and clarifying ownership without subjecting those assets to the full probate process. Timely evaluation helps determine whether a petition or another path is the most sensible choice for the estate.
Another reason to pursue a Heggstad petition is to protect trustees from potential liability when executing distributions for items whose status is unclear. A court determination provides legal backing for trustee actions and can limit challenges from heirs or third parties. Additionally, the petition can produce a clear, enforceable order that compels institutions to retitle or deliver property. For families seeking to implement the trustmaker’s plan consistently and efficiently, the petition can be a pragmatic, legally effective tool to resolve funding errors and proceed with administration.
Typical scenarios that trigger a Heggstad petition include recently acquired property that was never retitled, bank or brokerage accounts that retained the decedent’s name, deeds prepared but not recorded, and assets with outdated beneficiary designations. Estates where the trustmaker worked with multiple advisors or relocated between properties often reveal overlooked items at death. When these gaps surface, trustees should inventory assets, consult relevant documents, and determine whether a petition or other resolution is needed to ensure proper distribution under the trust.
Real estate intended for the trust but still titled in the decedent’s name is a frequent cause for Heggstad petitions. This can occur when a deed was prepared but not recorded, or when a property transfer was delayed for tax or financing reasons. Because title companies and county recorders often require court direction to change ownership after death, a Heggstad petition can provide the judicial determination necessary to treat the property as trust property for distribution, enabling the trustee to carry out the trustmaker’s wishes without a full probate for that parcel.
Bank, brokerage, and retirement accounts that were intended to be owned by the trust but remain in the decedent’s name frequently require legal action. Institutions vary in how they respond to trust documents, and some will not retitle accounts without a court order. A Heggstad petition can resolve this by presenting evidence of intent and asking the court to declare that the accounts should be treated as trust property for distribution, which can then allow trustees to distribute funds according to the trust provisions without engaging in full probate for those accounts.
Assets that have beneficiary designations inconsistent with the trust’s terms or with ambiguous instructions can create disputes among heirs. Where the trustmaker intended certain property to be controlled by the trust but beneficiary designations or title documents tell a different story, trustees may need a court’s determination to reconcile the conflict. Filing a Heggstad petition and presenting clear evidence of the trustmaker’s intent can resolve conflicting claims and ensure distributions follow the trust’s instructions, reducing the risk of later contests among interested parties.
If you are managing a trust administration in Piedmont or Alameda County and have found assets that were not properly transferred into a trust, help is available to assess the situation and pursue the right path. Whether an informal resolution is possible or a Heggstad petition is recommended, timely action preserves estate value and reduces family stress. The Law Offices of Robert P. Bergman can review the trust and asset records, advise on evidence gathering, and explain potential outcomes so trustees can decide with confidence how to move forward for the benefit of beneficiaries.
Choosing counsel for trust and post-death title issues means selecting a practitioner who understands local probate procedures, court practices, and how institutions respond to trust documentation. Our firm brings focused experience handling Heggstad petitions and related trust administration matters throughout Alameda County. We prioritize practical strategies that align with clients’ goals, including thorough preparation of declarations, collecting necessary documentary proof, and clearly presenting the facts to the court to achieve a durable legal determination that supports trustees and beneficiaries alike.
We work with trustees to identify the best route for resolving funding errors, whether through direct negotiation with financial institutions or by pursuing a court petition when necessary. Our process includes a careful review of the trust instrument, deeds, account records, and any relevant correspondence, so the petition can be supported by persuasive evidence. Communication with beneficiaries and interested parties is managed thoughtfully to reduce conflict, and our goal is to reach a definitive outcome that honors the trustmaker’s intentions while minimizing delay and expense.
Throughout the proceedings we focus on clear, practical counsel so trustees can fulfill their responsibilities with confidence. From initial document collection through filing and court hearing, we aim to streamline the process and provide trustees with a roadmap for distributing assets according to the trust. Clients receive guidance on evidence gathering, notice requirements, and potential outcomes, enabling informed decisions during each stage of administration. Our priority is to achieve a fair and effective resolution that secures the estate assets for intended beneficiaries.
Our process begins with a focused intake to gather trust documents, asset records, deeds, and beneficiary information. We evaluate whether an informal correction may succeed, and if not, we prepare a petition that sets out the factual basis for treating the property as trust assets. This includes drafting declarations, assembling supporting exhibits, and managing notice to interested persons. We file the petition in the appropriate county, attend hearings as needed, and obtain the court’s order so that trustees can distribute the property in accordance with the trust.
The first step is a detailed review of the trust, deeds, account statements, and any preliminary transfer documents. We collect evidence demonstrating the trustmaker’s intent to fund the trust, which can include correspondence, drafts, witness declarations, and any contemporaneous notes. This review identifies which assets require action and whether informal resolution is possible. Accurate identification and organization of evidence are essential to drafting a petition that persuasively explains why the court should treat assets as trust property for distribution.
We work with trustees to compile a complete inventory and to obtain records from banks, brokers, title companies, and county recorders. This work may involve requesting account histories, copies of deeds, and any documents prepared in anticipation of transferring assets into the trust. The goal is to create a coherent file that supports the factual narrative needed for a petition, demonstrating the trustmaker’s intent and the steps that were taken or intended to be taken before death to fund the trust.
While assembling records, we evaluate whether institutions will accept the trust documents and supporting evidence without court action. If banks or title companies indicate willingness to retitle or release assets based on the documentation, an informal transfer may be pursued to save time and expense. When institutions decline to proceed or when competing claims exist, we shift to preparing a formal petition to secure a judicial determination. This assessment helps trustees choose the most efficient, reliable path for correcting funding errors.
If a Heggstad petition is necessary, we draft a clear petition that identifies the property at issue, explains the basis for treating it as trust property, and attaches supporting documents. The filing package typically includes the petition, declarations from trustees or witnesses, copies of the trust and related documents, and proposed orders for the court. We prepare required notices to interested parties and coordinate filing with the probate court in the appropriate county so the petition moves forward in compliance with local rules and timelines.
A persuasive petition relies on well-crafted declarations that explain the circumstances surrounding the intended transfer, identify supporting documentation, and present the trustee’s factual account. Declarations may be accompanied by exhibits such as deeds, account statements, beneficiary forms, and correspondence demonstrating intent. Careful drafting anticipates likely questions from the court and addresses potential objections from interested parties, ensuring a complete record that supports the requested judicial determination that the property should be treated as trust assets.
After preparing the petition and supporting declarations, we file the materials with the probate court and ensure that required notices are served on beneficiaries, heirs, and other interested parties. Proper notice provides an opportunity for affected persons to review the petition and to raise any objections. Good notice practices help prevent procedural challenges and support a smoother hearing process. Where appropriate, we attempt to coordinate with other parties to minimize disputes and to present a clear path to the court for resolution.
Once the petition is filed and notice has been provided, the court may set a hearing to consider the evidence. At the hearing, the judge evaluates the declarations, exhibits, and any objections to determine whether the property should be treated as trust property for distribution. If the court grants the petition, it issues an order reflecting that determination and directing how the asset will be handled. The resulting order allows trustees to proceed with distribution under the trust and provides formal legal protection for those actions.
Preparing for the hearing involves organizing evidence, anticipating potential objections, and ensuring that the record is complete and persuasive. We brief clients on how the court process works, what to expect at the hearing, and how to respond to typical concerns. Clear presentation of facts, witness declarations, and documentary proof increases the likelihood of a favorable ruling. Our role includes representing the trustee’s position at the hearing and explaining the legal basis for treating the specified assets as trust property.
If the court grants the petition, we obtain the signed order and assist in implementing its directives, such as presenting the order to financial institutions or recording the order with the county recorder. The order becomes the authoritative basis for retitling or distributing the property under the trust. We guide trustees through any follow-up steps required to complete transfers, close accounts, or otherwise deliver property to beneficiaries in accordance with the trust instrument and the court’s determination.
A Heggstad petition is a court filing in California asking the probate court to treat certain assets as part of a decedent’s trust even though title was never formally changed into the trust before death. The petition sets out facts showing the decedent’s intent to fund the trust and attaches supporting documents. It is commonly used when specific items, such as real property or accounts, were intended for the trust but remain in the decedent’s name, and a judicial declaration is necessary to permit distribution under the trust. This remedy addresses isolated funding oversights and provides a path to distribute assets according to the trust without initiating full probate for those items. The petition includes declarations from the trustee or witnesses, copies of the trust and related documents, and supporting exhibits. If the court grants the petition, it issues an order that allows trustees to treat the identified assets as trust property and proceed with distribution following the trust terms.
The time to resolve a Heggstad petition in Alameda County varies depending on case complexity, court scheduling, and whether the petition is contested. Simple, uncontested matters with straightforward documentation may move more quickly, often within a few months, while contested or complex filings can take longer because of additional preparation, discovery, or hearings. Local court calendars and required notice periods also affect timing, so each matter should be evaluated for expected timelines based on its particular facts. Working proactively to gather clear evidence and to communicate with potential interested parties can reduce delays. If institutions are cooperative or if beneficiaries do not object, the process is often smoother. When disputes arise, the need for additional pleadings or court hearings will extend the timeline. An early assessment of evidence and likely objections helps set realistic expectations for how long the process will take.
A Heggstad petition can prevent the need for full probate for the specific assets at issue by obtaining a court order that those items should be treated as trust property for distribution. This targeted remedy focuses on particular assets that were meant to be in the trust but were not retitled. When granted, the order allows trustees to handle those assets under the trust’s terms rather than through probate, which can save time and expense for those items. It does not change the status of other assets that properly remain in probate. While the petition can avoid probate for identified assets, it is not a broad substitute for probate in every situation. The effect is limited to the property specified in the petition and depends on the evidence presented. Trustees should inventory all assets and consider whether other items require different procedures to transfer or distribute them according to the decedent’s estate plan.
Evidence to support a Heggstad petition typically includes the trust document, declarations from the trustee or other witnesses, copies of deeds or account statements, correspondence showing the decedent’s intention to fund the trust, and any drafts or transfer forms that were prepared. The court evaluates the totality of the evidence to determine whether it is more likely than not that the decedent intended the asset to be part of the trust. Clear, contemporaneous documentation of intent is especially persuasive in these matters. Additional helpful evidence can include statements from professionals who assisted with planning, records of payments or transfers related to the asset, and proof that steps were taken toward funding the trust even if the final act was not completed. The stronger and more organized the documentary record, the better the likelihood of a successful petition and a favorable court determination.
Yes. When a Heggstad petition is filed, required notice must be given to interested parties such as beneficiaries, heirs, and others who might be affected by the court’s decision. Proper notice provides an opportunity for those parties to review the petition and to object if they have concerns. The notice process follows probate rules and helps ensure that the court’s final determination considers any opposing views or competing claims before issuing an order that affects property distribution. Notifying interested parties also reduces the risk of procedural challenges later; if proper notice has been provided, the resulting order has a stronger standing. Trustees should be prepared to address questions from beneficiaries and to explain the rationale for filing the petition, the supporting evidence, and the anticipated outcome so that the notice process is transparent and minimizes conflict.
Costs associated with filing a Heggstad petition vary depending on factors such as the complexity of the issues, the amount of evidence that must be assembled, court filing fees, and whether the petition is contested. In uncontested matters, legal fees are generally limited to preparation of the petition, declarations, exhibits, and handling the filing and notice requirements. Contested petitions incur additional expenses for responsive pleadings, discovery, and court hearings. Each case requires a tailored budget based on the actions necessary to achieve a clear resolution. It is often possible to estimate likely costs after an initial review of records and the degree of cooperation expected from institutions and beneficiaries. Where evidence is strong and objections are unlikely, costs are typically lower. Trustees should weigh the cost of filing against the potential savings from avoiding probate for the assets at issue and the value of obtaining a binding court order to protect distributions.
Trustees must act carefully when distributing property that may not clearly belong to the trust. Distributing assets without proper authority can expose a trustee to claims by beneficiaries or by the estate if the property is later determined not to be trust property. A court order obtained through a Heggstad petition provides clear legal authority for distribution and reduces personal exposure for trustees. When uncertainty exists, seeking judicial guidance is a prudent way to limit liability and ensure distributions comply with California law and the trust’s terms. If a trustee believes assets are trust property but lacks clear documentation or institutional cooperation, seeking a Heggstad petition is often the safest route. The order will document the court’s conclusion and support the trustee’s actions. Trustees should document their decision-making process, communications, and efforts to obtain clarity before making distributions to preserve fiduciary protections and to minimize the risk of later claims against them.
Heggstad petitions can be contested when heirs or beneficiaries dispute whether the assets were intended for the trust or when competing documentation suggests a different ownership plan. When contests arise, the court examines the evidence presented by all parties, may permit discovery, and could require additional hearings to resolve factual disputes. Resolving contested matters through the court process creates a definitive outcome, but it can also extend timelines and increase costs. Early efforts to gather compelling documentation and to communicate with interested parties can sometimes prevent contests from developing. When disputes occur, the court process allows for a structured evaluation of declarations, documentary evidence, and witness testimony as needed. The judge issues a decision based on the preponderance of the evidence standard used in these matters. Parties can then appeal if they believe the court erred, though initial resolution in the probate court often brings the certainty necessary for trustees to proceed with distribution.
Alternatives to filing a Heggstad petition include attempting to resolve title or account retitling informally with banks, brokers, or title companies by presenting trust documents and proof of death, or using a pour-over will to transfer property into the trust through probate. In some cases, corrective deeds or beneficiary designation updates can address issues without court involvement. These paths can be faster and less costly when institutions cooperate and when no one disputes ownership, but they may not be sufficient if institutions refuse to act or if there are competing claims. Another alternative is for trustees to seek limited agreement among beneficiaries to accept an informal transfer, documented in writing. While this can be effective among cooperative parties, it lacks the binding force of a court order and may leave room for future disputes. When certainty and enforceability are priorities, a Heggstad petition often provides the most reliable legal remedy for treating assets as trust property.
To avoid the need for a Heggstad petition later, take steps during estate planning and trust administration to ensure thorough funding of the trust. Retitle real estate into the trust, update ownership of bank and brokerage accounts, name the trust as beneficiary where appropriate, and confirm that transfer documents are recorded or completed as needed. Periodic reviews of account titles and beneficiary designations help catch omissions early and prevent post-death complications that require court intervention. Maintaining clear records of the trustmaker’s intentions, such as written instructions, drafts of transfer documents, and communications with advisors, also reduces the risk of funding errors. Working with counsel or a trusted advisor at the time of planning to verify that all assets are properly funded into the trust is the best preventive measure, allowing families to carry out the estate plan without needing corrective petitions after death.
Criminal Defense
Homicide Defense
Manslaughter
Assault and Battery
Assault with a Deadly Weapon
Battery Causing Great Bodily Injury
Domestic Violence
Domestic Violence Protection Orders
Domestic Violence Restraining Order
Arson Defense
Weapons Charges
Illegal Firearm Possessions
Civil Harassment
Civil Harassment Restraining Orders
School Violence Restraining Orders
Violent Crimes Defense
Estate Planning Practice Areas