A Heggstad petition can be an important tool for beneficiaries and trustees when a transfer to a trust is disputed or when assets were transferred to a trust but a probate court needs assurance that the transfer is valid under California law. This page explains how a Heggstad petition works, what it addresses, and why property owners, trustees, and heirs in Lucerne should understand the process. If a transfer to a trust was intended but not properly completed or was overlooked, a Heggstad petition may be used to confirm the trust’s ownership and avoid extended disputes in probate court.
This guide offers clear, practical information about filing a Heggstad petition and how the petition can resolve title and beneficiary questions without full probate. It covers common situations where Heggstad petitions are used, the legal standards courts consider, and the types of evidence that support a petition. Our aim is to help readers in Lucerne and Lake County recognize when a Heggstad petition might be appropriate and what steps generally follow from preparation through court review, so families can protect estate plan intentions and property ownership.
A Heggstad petition provides a path to confirm that property belongs to a trust even when paperwork or recordation is incomplete, which can prevent a property from being treated as part of a probate estate. The petition can resolve title disputes, clarify beneficiary rights, and reduce the time and cost that a full probate action may require. For trustees and beneficiaries, the Heggstad process offers a way to preserve the grantor’s intentions, protect family property, and clear title so assets can be transferred or managed according to the trust terms without unnecessary delay or expense.
The Law Offices of Robert P. Bergman assist clients with trust administration, estate planning, and trust-related petitions in California. Our approach is practical and client-focused, emphasizing clear communication and careful preparation of court filings when a Heggstad petition is needed. We work with trustees, beneficiaries, and family members to gather supporting documentation, draft persuasive declarations and pleadings, and pursue timely resolution of title and transfer issues. The goal is to protect property and carry out the grantor’s documented wishes while minimizing family conflict and court delays.
A Heggstad petition asks the probate court to declare that certain assets were properly transferred to a trust despite defects in recordation or other formalities. The petition is often used when a property deed, account title, or other asset appears in the decedent’s name rather than in the name of the trust. By presenting evidence such as the trust document, transfer instruments, or witness declarations, petitioners ask the court to recognize trust ownership and prevent the asset from being administered in probate. This approach can be faster and less intrusive than a full probate administration.
Courts review Heggstad petitions by examining whether the transfer to the trust was intended and substantially completed before the decedent’s death or incapacity. Evidence commonly includes the trust instrument, deeds, assignment documents, beneficiary designations, and declarations from persons with knowledge of the grantor’s intent. The process differs from other probate procedures because it focuses on proving the grantor’s transfer intent and the practical effect of the transfer, rather than reopening or redoing the entire estate administration, which can be more costly and time consuming.
A Heggstad petition is a specific probate court action in California used to establish that property belongs to a trust when formal transfer steps were incomplete. The petition explains the facts, shows the trust instrument, and asks the court for an order confirming trust ownership. This remedy is often appropriate when a deed was intended to name the trust but mistakenly named the decedent, or when assets were meant to be assigned to the trust but paperwork was not finalized. The court’s confirmation allows trustees to manage the asset under the trust terms without a full probate process.
When evaluating a Heggstad petition, the court looks at evidence of the grantor’s intent, documentation of the trust, and any transfer instruments showing an effort to place assets into the trust. Declarations from witnesses, a copy of the deed or assignment, and prior communications about the trust can be persuasive. The petition must demonstrate that the transfer was intended to take the asset out of the decedent’s individual estate. Clear factual support and organized legal argument help the court determine whether an order confirming trust ownership is appropriate.
Understanding the terms used in Heggstad matters helps trustees and heirs follow the process and gather the right proof. Key concepts include transfer instruments, trust ownership, declaration of intent, probate court orders, and title clarification. Recognizing how these terms relate to deeds, beneficiary designations, and account titling makes it easier to compile evidence that the court will evaluate. Clear definitions reduce confusion, assist with the preparation of declarations and supporting documents, and improve the chances of a favorable court ruling confirming trust ownership.
A Heggstad petition is a legal filing in California probate court that requests a judicial declaration that specified property was properly transferred to a trust and belongs to the trust rather than to the decedent’s probate estate. The petition typically includes the trust document, evidence of the attempted transfer, and sworn statements demonstrating the grantor’s intent. The court examines this evidence to determine whether equitable relief is warranted and whether title should be recognized in the name of the trust to allow trustees to manage or transfer the asset according to trust terms without full probate administration.
Transfer instruments are the deeds, assignments, beneficiary designation forms, or other documents that effect or reflect the movement of property into a trust. Examples include grant deeds that were to be recorded in the trust’s name, assignments of bank or brokerage accounts, and trust funding documents. When such instruments are incomplete or not properly recorded, a Heggstad petition can be used to present evidence to the court showing that the instruments and the grantor’s actions were intended to transfer ownership to the trust, enabling the court to confirm that result.
Trust ownership refers to the legal recognition that title to property is held by a trust and administered by a trustee on behalf of beneficiaries according to the trust terms. Establishing trust ownership is central to avoiding probate for assets that were intended to pass through a trust. When the recorded title does not reflect the trust, a Heggstad petition may be filed to prove that the grantor intended the trust to hold the property, and the court can enter an order recognizing the trust’s ownership to allow management and transfer under trust provisions.
A declaration of intent is a sworn written statement from a witness, trustee, or other person that explains what the grantor intended regarding the transfer of specific assets into a trust. Such declarations are commonly used in Heggstad petitions to provide the court with factual context about the grantor’s actions, conversations, and documents. These sworn statements help the court assess whether the transfer to the trust was intended and substantially completed, supporting an order that confirms trust ownership and clarifies title for affected assets.
When assets intended for a trust are not properly titled, there are multiple legal pathways: filing a Heggstad petition to confirm trust ownership, pursuing a full probate administration, or negotiating transfers outside of court where possible. A Heggstad petition can resolve title issues more directly by focusing on the transfer intent and the supporting documentation. Probate administration, by contrast, opens a broader process that addresses debts, distribution, and creditor claims, which can take significantly longer and involve more oversight from the court compared to the narrower relief sought in a Heggstad action.
A Heggstad petition is often appropriate when the only obstacle to trust administration is a titling error such as an unrecorded deed or an account still in the decedent’s name. If the intent to fund a trust is clear and supporting documents exist, the petition can clarify ownership without opening a full probate estate. This approach is efficient when parties agree about the grantor’s intentions and the evidence shows the transfer was meant to place the asset into the trust, allowing the court to confirm trust title and avoid broader estate proceedings.
In situations where disputes are limited to title or documentation and not to the trust’s validity or overall distribution, a Heggstad petition can narrow the court’s inquiry to the specific asset at issue. This can reduce litigation costs and simplify the resolution process. If family members agree on the trust’s terms but need a judicial order to update records or transfer title, the Heggstad route provides a practical solution that resolves ownership without subjecting the entire estate plan to challenge or public probate administration.
A broader legal approach may be necessary when multiple parties contest the trust, when creditor claims are significant, or when asset transfers raise questions about undue influence or lack of capacity. In those cases, a narrow Heggstad petition may not resolve all disputes. Full probate or related litigation may be required to address creditor rights, allegations of misconduct, or challenges to the trust’s validity. A comprehensive strategy helps ensure all potential legal claims are considered and managed in a coordinated manner through appropriate court channels.
When titling problems involve many assets or when transfers are interconnected in ways that affect distribution across the estate, a comprehensive plan is often required. Resolving a single deed may not address related account designations, beneficiary forms, or other instruments that influence the overall plan. In such circumstances, a broader legal approach coordinates resolution of all items, ensures consistent court orders where needed, and reduces the risk of future disputes arising from piecemeal treatment of closely related assets and documentation.
A comprehensive approach to trust funding and title clarification can prevent future disputes by resolving underlying documentation gaps, aligning records with the grantor’s intent, and addressing potential legal challenges proactively. This reduces the likelihood that small errors lead to larger litigation later. Taking a thorough approach also helps trustees manage assets confidently, improves clarity for beneficiaries, and supports smoother administration and distribution according to the trust terms, while preserving family relationships through clear, documented resolution of ownership and transfer matters.
Addressing trust and title issues across all affected assets creates consistent results and protects against inconsistent court rulings or conflicting transfers. By coordinating corrections, filings, and any necessary court petitions at once, parties can avoid repeated court appearances and reduce legal uncertainty. This method often leads to quicker final resolution, clearer title for real property, accurate beneficiary designations, and reduced administrative burdens for trustees, which together support the orderly distribution of assets and the faithful application of the grantor’s documented plan.
One key benefit of a comprehensive approach is obtaining clear title to property, which simplifies management, sale, or transfer of assets by the trustee. When records and deeds accurately reflect trust ownership, financial institutions and county recorders accept trust administration actions without unnecessary delay. This clarity reduces administrative friction and helps trustees make timely decisions about maintenance, refinancing, or disposition of assets. Ultimately, clear title supports efficient trust administration and preserves the intended distribution to beneficiaries under the trust terms.
A coordinated resolution of titling and documentation issues reduces the risk that family members will contest transfers or that competing claims will arise later. By addressing inconsistencies and filing necessary declarations or petitions upfront, parties can obtain court orders that provide legal finality. This approach also supports transparent communication among trustees and beneficiaries, which helps build trust and lowers the chance of misunderstandings. Ensuring records match the grantor’s documented wishes protects the estate plan and minimizes contentious litigation down the road.
Start by collecting all documents related to the trust and the asset in question, including deeds, trust instruments, assignments, beneficiary designation forms, bank or brokerage statements, and communications that show the grantor’s intent. Declarations from individuals who handled the transfers or who discussed the funding with the grantor can be highly persuasive. Organizing these materials in advance helps streamline the petition drafting process and allows the court to see a coherent narrative that supports recognition of trust ownership, which can speed up resolution and reduce the need for supplemental filings.
Open communication with trustees, beneficiaries, and family members before filing can reduce surprise and opposition that might complicate the case. Where possible, obtain written consents or acknowledgments that demonstrate agreement about the trust’s terms and the intent behind transfers. When disputes are possible, early discussion can sometimes lead to agreements that make the petition routine. Keeping records of communications and any informal agreements can strengthen the factual record presented to the court and facilitate a smoother, more efficient process.
Consider a Heggstad petition when property that was intended to belong to a trust remains titled in the decedent’s name, when a deed was not recorded in the trust’s name, or when account titles and beneficiary forms were not updated as planned. This petition is appropriate where the grantor’s intent to fund the trust is clear but administrative steps were incomplete. Using the petition can confirm trust ownership, prevent property from entering probate, and enable trustees to manage or distribute assets according to the trust instrument rather than through probate court.
Another reason to pursue a Heggstad petition is to reduce the scope of court involvement compared to a full probate estate, particularly when the matter concerns a single asset or a small group of assets. If family members largely agree on the trust’s terms and the goal is to obtain an order that clears title for practical administration, the petition offers a focused remedy. It is also useful when delays in recording or clerical mistakes create uncertainty that courts can resolve with targeted factual findings and a clear legal order.
Typical circumstances include instances where a grant deed intended to name the trust was mistakenly prepared in the decedent’s name, where an asset transfer was initiated but not finalized before death, or where financial accounts were never retitled. Heggstad petitions also arise when a successor trustee needs an order to confirm the trust owns a particular asset to facilitate sale or transfer. Each of these situations involves a gap between the grantor’s intent and the recorded ownership, which the petition seeks to bridge through factual proof and court confirmation.
Often a Heggstad petition is triggered when real property deeds remain in the deceased grantor’s name despite the intention to convey the property into a trust. This can happen due to oversight, timing issues, or clerical errors. The petition asks the court to recognize the trust’s ownership based on the grantor’s documented intent and any unrecorded transfer instruments. A successful petition provides clear title in the trust name and avoids the need for probate to transfer the real estate, which can be more time consuming and public.
Bank and brokerage accounts that should have been retitled in the name of the trust sometimes remain in the decedent’s individual name. When records show the grantor intended those accounts to be trust assets, a Heggstad petition can be used to have the court confirm the trust’s ownership. Financial institutions and custodians typically require legal confirmation before accepting trust administration steps, so a court order resolving the title issue enables trustees to access, manage, or distribute account funds consistent with the trust instrument.
At times, written assignments, trust funding checklists, or draft deeds demonstrate that the grantor took steps to move assets into a trust but did not complete recording or signature requirements. Declarations and supporting documents showing the steps that were taken and the grantor’s intent can form the basis of a Heggstad petition. The petition asks the court to evaluate these materials and declare that the practical effect of the grantor’s actions was to transfer the asset to the trust, enabling administration without opening a larger probate matter.
If you face a title issue with a trust-funded asset in Lucerne, the Law Offices of Robert P. Bergman can help evaluate whether a Heggstad petition is appropriate. We assist clients in collecting documents, preparing declarations, and filing the petition so the court can assess whether an order confirming trust ownership is warranted. Our focus is to achieve efficient resolution, reduce unnecessary court expense, and preserve the grantor’s intent through careful presentation of the facts and legal arguments that support a favorable outcome.
Our team offers practical guidance through the Heggstad petition process, helping clients compile persuasive evidence and present a clear narrative to the court. We coordinate with title companies, financial institutions, and family members to assemble the necessary documentation, draft declarations, and prepare court filings designed to clarify trust ownership. The goal is to resolve title issues so trustees can manage assets in alignment with the trust instrument, avoiding a full probate action where possible and preserving family resources and privacy.
We focus on efficient case preparation, ensuring that filings are supported by organized evidence and legally sound argument. This reduces the likelihood of delays or supplemental briefing, and increases the chance the court will issue an order recognizing trust title. We also work to explain each step to clients, so trustees and beneficiaries understand the implications of filings, court orders, and subsequent recordation actions needed to reflect trust ownership with county recorders and financial institutions.
Communication and attention to detail matter in Heggstad petitions because courts evaluate factual records closely. We assist in drafting clear declarations, obtaining necessary documentary proof, and coordinating the logistics of filing and service. Where settlement or consent is possible, we pursue agreements that simplify court proceedings. When litigation is required, we present the strongest possible factual case to obtain judicial confirmation of trust ownership. This focused, methodical approach helps secure practical results for trustees and beneficiaries.
Our process begins with a thorough review of the trust document and any transfer records, followed by a meeting to identify the specific assets in question and the evidence available to support a petition. We then prepare declarations and compile documentary proof, coordinate with title companies or account custodians as needed, and draft the Heggstad petition and supporting memorandum for filing. After filing, we manage service, respond to any opposition, and seek a court hearing to obtain an order confirming trust ownership so trustees can act under the trust terms.
The first step is to gather and review all relevant documents, including the trust instrument, deeds, account statements, beneficiary forms, and any assignments or correspondence that demonstrate the grantor’s intent. We assess whether a Heggstad petition is the appropriate remedy or if other proceedings are required. This stage includes identifying witnesses and drafting declarations to support the factual basis for the petition. A clear strategy ensures the petition addresses the court’s likely questions and focuses on obtaining the necessary judicial confirmation of trust ownership.
We work with clients to locate the trust instrument, executed deeds, assignment documents, and financial account records that reflect the grantor’s intent to fund the trust. Where documents are missing, we seek alternative evidence such as emails, notes, or witness declarations that corroborate the transfer intent. This evidence is crucial to building a persuasive record for the court showing that the grantor intended the asset to be held by the trust, even if the formal recordation or retitling was not completed before the grantor’s incapacity or death.
Part of the preparation involves shaping a clear factual narrative supported by sworn declarations and documentary proof that explains the steps taken by the grantor to fund the trust. We help identify declarants and draft statements that describe meetings, conversations, and actions demonstrating the grantor’s intent. A persuasive factual narrative assists the court in understanding why equitable relief is appropriate and how an order confirming trust ownership aligns with the grantor’s documented steps and intentions regarding the specific asset.
Once the petition and supporting materials are prepared, we file the Heggstad petition in the appropriate probate court and arrange service on interested parties, which typically include heirs and beneficiaries who may be affected. We ensure court filing procedures and service requirements are met and monitor any responses. Proper notice and documentation help the court evaluate the petition efficiently and give potentially affected persons the opportunity to respond, which is important for obtaining a final order that will be accorded legal weight by title companies and other institutions.
Filing a Heggstad petition requires compliance with probate rules and local court procedures, including formatting, attachments, and filing fees. We prepare the petition packet with a clear table of contents, labeled exhibits, and well-organized declarations to facilitate the court’s review. Attention to these filing details reduces the chance of procedural rejection or requests for supplementation, enabling the matter to proceed to hearing without unnecessary administrative setbacks that can delay resolution and increase costs for trustees and beneficiaries.
After filing, we arrange proper statutory service on heirs, beneficiaries, and other interested parties so they have notice of the petition. We track any opposition or requests for additional information and respond promptly with supplemental declarations or legal briefing as needed. Effective communication and timely responses help keep the matter moving toward a hearing and reduce the likelihood of protracted litigation. Where parties consent, we document agreements that allow the court to act on stipulated facts and issue an order confirming trust ownership.
The hearing gives the court an opportunity to weigh the evidence and hear argument concerning the transfer and the grantor’s intent. We present a focused record at the hearing, highlighting the trust instrument, transfer documents, and declarations that support recognition of trust ownership. If the court is persuaded, it will enter an order declaring that the asset belongs to the trust. That order can then be recorded or provided to institutions to update title and allow trustees to manage or distribute the asset according to the trust.
Preparation for the hearing includes finalizing declarations, planning courtroom presentation, and confirming that all exhibits are in order for the judge’s review. We anticipate likely questions about the transfer and assemble clear answers supported by documentary proof. Thorough preparation reduces surprises at the hearing and helps the court reach a prompt decision. The goal is to obtain a judicial determination that resolves title questions so trustees can proceed with administration under the trust without added delay.
Once the court issues an order confirming trust ownership, the next step is to record the order or otherwise present it to title companies and financial institutions so records can be updated. Recording the court order with the county recorder or submitting it to account custodians provides the documentary proof institutions require to retitle assets and accept trustee action. This step completes the process by ensuring that practical control and title documentation align with the trust’s terms and the court’s findings.
A Heggstad petition is a legal request filed in probate court asking the judge to declare that specified property belongs to a trust despite defects in the public record or transfer formalities. It is typically used when a deed, account title, or other instrument still shows the decedent as the owner even though the grantor intended the asset to be owned by the trust. The petition presents supporting documents and sworn declarations to persuade the court that trust ownership should be recognized, enabling trustees to manage or transfer the asset under the trust terms. This remedy focuses on the particular asset or assets in question rather than addressing all issues that a full probate may cover. Because it narrows the court’s inquiry to whether the asset was effectively transferred to the trust, a Heggstad petition can often be resolved more quickly and with less exposure than a general probate proceeding, provided the evidentiary record supports the grantor’s intended transfer and there is not substantial opposition from interested parties.
A Heggstad petition differs from a probate administration because it seeks a judicial declaration about ownership of specific assets rather than opening an estate administration to resolve debts and distribute all assets under probate rules. Probate is a comprehensive process that involves inventorying assets, notifying creditors, and supervising distributions, while a Heggstad petition targets title clarification so the asset can be treated as a trust asset. The limited scope makes Heggstad petitions appropriate when the main issue is titling rather than full estate settlement. Because the petition is narrowly focused, it can be less invasive and less public than a full probate. However, if disputes arise about the trust’s validity, creditor claims, or other matters that affect the estate broadly, probate or additional legal actions may still be necessary. Choosing the correct legal pathway depends on the facts, the breadth of affected assets, and the presence of contested issues that require broader judicial oversight.
To support a Heggstad petition, courts typically look for the trust document, any deeds or transfer instruments, account statements, beneficiary designation forms, and sworn declarations from individuals familiar with the grantor’s intent and efforts to fund the trust. Documentary proof showing that the grantor intended the asset to be owned by the trust and took steps toward that result is central. The clearer and more contemporaneous the evidence, the stronger the petition generally appears to the court. Declarations from trustees, witnesses who handled the transaction, or persons who can attest to the grantor’s directions are often used to fill gaps where formal recordation is lacking. Correspondence, draft deeds, funding checklists, and bank or title company communications that corroborate intent can also be valuable. Organizing this evidence into a coherent factual narrative helps the judge assess whether equitable relief is warranted to recognize trust ownership.
Typically, a successor trustee or other interested party with a direct stake in the asset may file a Heggstad petition in California. Petitioners often include trustees seeking affirmation of trust ownership to manage or distribute property, beneficiaries who need title clarified to receive trust assets, or personal representatives when a trust administration intersects with probate matters. The petitioner must demonstrate a sufficient legal interest and provide the court with the factual basis for the requested order. Because the process involves notifying interested parties, such as heirs and named beneficiaries, the petitioner must ensure proper service and compliance with probate notice requirements. The court will consider any responses or objections from interested persons before ruling, so filing parties should be prepared to address potential challenges by assembling thorough documentation and declarations supporting the grantor’s intent to fund the trust.
The timeline for a Heggstad petition varies based on court schedules, the completeness of the filing, and whether opposition is filed. In straightforward cases with clear documentation and no opposition, the matter can sometimes be resolved in a matter of weeks to a few months, depending on local court calendars and notice requirements. Preparation time for gathering documents and drafting declarations also affects the overall timeline before filing. When interested parties contest the petition or when additional evidence is required, the process can take longer and involve additional hearings or briefing. Promptly collecting and organizing the supporting documents, meeting notice deadlines, and responding to any objections efficiently can help shorten the process and lead to a practical resolution sooner rather than later.
If the court issues an order declaring that the asset belongs to the trust, that order can be recorded or provided to financial institutions and title companies to update records accordingly. Recording the order with the county recorder or presenting it to account custodians creates a permanent public record that documents the court’s determination and serves as proof for third parties that the asset is trust property. This provides legal clarity for trustees to act on the asset without further legal impediment related to ownership. Some institutions may have additional administrative requirements before retitling accounts or accepting trustee instructions, such as providing certified copies of the order or completing internal forms. Working closely with the custodian or title company after the court order is entered ensures the necessary steps are taken to reflect the court’s finding in institutional records and to give trustees access to the asset under the trust’s terms.
Yes, heirs or creditors may object to a Heggstad petition if they believe the trust transfer was improper, the trust was invalid, or a creditor’s claim impacts the asset. Objections can lead to contested hearings and may require additional evidence, briefing, or even broader litigation if the trust itself or related transfers are disputed. The court will consider any timely objections and weigh them against the evidence presented by the petitioner in deciding whether to issue an order recognizing trust ownership. When opposition is likely, careful preparation and a strategic approach help address contested issues. This may include obtaining fuller documentary proof, expert opinions about the transfer process when permitted, and persuasive declarations from those with direct knowledge of the grantor’s intent. If creditor claims are at issue, the court may consider the impact of those claims as part of the overall determination and order appropriate relief balancing creditor and beneficiary interests.
When documentation is incomplete or missing, alternative forms of proof can sometimes support a Heggstad petition. Contemporaneous communications, draft deeds, funding checklists, and witness declarations that describe the grantor’s actions and intent can help fill evidentiary gaps. Courts evaluate the totality of the circumstances and may find that a combination of documentary and testimonial evidence demonstrates the grantor’s intent to transfer the asset to the trust even when formal recordation was not completed. However, missing documentation can make the petition more challenging, and the court may request additional proof or schedule a contested hearing. Preparing thorough, credible declarations and seeking corroborating evidence from title companies, financial institutions, or persons involved in the transfer process increases the likelihood of a favorable outcome in cases with incomplete records.
Many financial institutions and title companies will accept a court order that confirms trust ownership and will retitle accounts or property accordingly once presented with certified copies of the order and any other required documentation. Institutions have internal procedures to verify court orders, and they may require additional forms or affidavits before making changes. The court order serves as authoritative proof that the asset belongs to the trust, which most custodians rely on to update records and allow trustee access or transfer. It can be helpful to coordinate with the relevant institutions early in the process to learn about their requirements for retitling, as this helps ensure the petition and supporting documentation meet those needs. Prompt communication after a court order is entered typically expedites the administrative steps needed to reflect the trust’s ownership in institutional records and public title files.
Alternatives to filing a Heggstad petition include negotiating a post-death transfer with the relevant institution or recording a corrective deed if parties agree and the legal conditions are met. In some cases, a simple administrative correction by a title company or account custodian may solve the problem if all interested parties consent and documentation of intent is sufficient. For more complicated disputes or where consent is lacking, a Heggstad petition provides a formal judicial mechanism to resolve title questions. If broad disputes exist about the trust’s validity or if creditor matters require comprehensive resolution, opening a probate administration or pursuing litigation addressing those broader issues may be necessary. Evaluating the most appropriate approach depends on the facts, the number of affected assets, and whether parties can reach agreement outside of court to avoid expanded proceedings.
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