A Heggstad petition can be a critical tool for beneficiaries and trustees when trust property was wrongly distributed or left out of trust documents. This guide explains what a Heggstad petition is, why someone might file one in California, and how it fits into a broader estate plan. Whether you are a trustee, beneficiary, family member, or fiduciary, understanding the legal grounds, typical procedures, and likely outcomes will help you make informed decisions. The following sections walk through definitions, common situations, comparisons to other options, and practical next steps for those dealing with trust distribution disputes in Beverly Hills and throughout California.
The Law Offices of Robert P. Bergman assists clients with a full range of estate planning and trust matters, including petitions to determine whether property should be considered trust assets under Heggstad. Our practice focuses on careful case assessment, clear communication, and helping clients preserve estate goals while following California law. This page outlines common reasons people pursue a Heggstad petition, the legal process that typically follows, and how to evaluate whether a limited action or a broader approach will serve your needs. If you have questions about missing assets, incorrectly transferred property, or trust administration concerns, the information below can help you prepare and decide on next steps.
A Heggstad petition provides a legal path to clarify whether property should be treated as part of a trust despite being titled in an individual name. The principal benefit is clarity: determining asset ownership under trust law can prevent disputes, resolve administration problems, and ensure the decedent’s intentions are honored. Filing this type of petition may also protect beneficiaries from improper transfers and provide a streamlined remedy compared to broader contested trust litigation. For trustees and beneficiaries alike, resolving title and transfer questions early can reduce uncertainty, limit cost and delay, and allow trust administration to proceed in a manner consistent with California probate and trust statutes.
The Law Offices of Robert P. Bergman has a long-standing practice serving clients across California with estate planning, trust administration, and related litigation. Our approach emphasizes case assessment, careful documentation review, and strategic planning to resolve title disputes or ambiguities involving trust property. We work closely with clients to gather necessary records, evaluate proof of intent, and identify the most effective procedural path, whether through a focused petition or broader estate proceedings. Communication is a priority, and we strive to explain options and likely outcomes clearly so clients can make informed decisions about Heggstad petitions and other trust remedies.
A Heggstad petition asks the court to treat property as trust property even when title remains in a decedent’s or trustee’s individual name. The petition typically relies on evidence that the decedent intended the asset to be part of the trust, such as trust terms, transfer documents, or contemporaneous records showing an intent to fund the trust. The process requires careful collection of documents and testimony demonstrating that the transfer or lack of retitling was an oversight rather than an intentional exclusion. Understanding how the petition interacts with probate, trust administration, and creditor claims is essential for a successful outcome.
Successful handling of a Heggstad petition often depends on demonstrating clear indicia of trust funding intent alongside proper procedural filings under California law. The court examines the totality of circumstances: trust language, transfer instruments, tax records, account statements, and witness testimony. Petitioners must present persuasive proof that treating the property as trust property honors the decedent’s plan. Responding parties may counter with evidence of contrary intent or flaws in the claimed transfers. Because outcomes hinge on documentary and testimonial evidence, thorough investigation and early fact-finding are important steps before filing a petition.
A Heggstad petition seeks a judicial finding that particular property is trust property despite being titled differently. The petition typically argues that the decedent intended the assets to be part of the trust and that failure to retitle the asset was inadvertent or caused by clerical oversight. Courts look for objective evidence of intent and consistent trust administration. The remedy can avoid probate for assets meant to be governed by the trust and allow the trust to be administered as intended. This judicial clarification helps trustees carry out duties and beneficiaries receive property according to the trust document.
Key elements of a Heggstad petition include identifying the property in dispute, presenting documentary evidence of the decedent’s intent to fund the trust, and demonstrating why title did not reflect that intent. Typical processes begin with document collection, drafting the petition, and serving interested parties. Courts may hold hearings to evaluate evidence and may order property to be treated as trust property if the petition is granted. Throughout the process, attention to timelines, notice requirements, and potential creditor or beneficiary objections is necessary to protect both trustee and beneficiary interests.
Understanding common terms helps make the Heggstad petition process more approachable. Familiarity with words such as trust funding, beneficiary, trustee, probate, and declaratory relief allows parties to follow proceedings and respond appropriately. This section provides clear definitions and practical context so that clients can grasp how these terms apply to their situation. Knowing the language used by courts, trustees, and attorneys will also help in gathering evidence, preparing statements, and anticipating likely procedural steps during a petition to determine trust property status under California law.
Trust funding refers to the process of transferring assets into a trust so they are governed by the trust’s terms. Funding can involve retitling real estate, assigning account ownership, changing beneficiary designations, or transferring deeded property. Proper funding ensures trust assets avoid probate and are distributed according to the trust document. When funding is incomplete or omitted, disputes can arise about whether assets should nonetheless be treated as trust property. A Heggstad petition is one legal tool to address these kinds of funding irregularities and align asset distribution with the settlor’s intentions.
Declaratory relief is a court judgment that resolves uncertainty about legal rights or status without ordering enforcement beyond the declaration itself. In the context of trust administration, a declaratory judgment can establish whether certain assets belong to the trust. A Heggstad petition often seeks such a declaration to clarify ownership, guiding trustees and beneficiaries on how to proceed. The declaration can prevent later disputes, inform distribution plans, and support administrative decisions by providing a formal legal determination under California law.
A trustee is an individual or entity responsible for managing trust assets and carrying out the terms of the trust document. Trustees have fiduciary duties to manage assets prudently, follow the settlor’s instructions, and act in beneficiaries’ interests. When assets are not properly titled, trustees may face hurdles in administering the trust. A trustee may need to pursue a Heggstad petition to clarify ownership and secure the authority to manage or distribute specific property according to the trust.
A beneficiary is a person or entity entitled to benefit from trust property under the trust terms. Beneficiaries may initiate or participate in petitions to protect their interests when trust funding appears incomplete or misdirected. If an asset should have been part of the trust but remains titled otherwise, beneficiaries may seek a court declaration to ensure distribution consistent with the trust. Understanding beneficiary rights helps parties navigate the petition process and protect intended inheritances under California law.
When property funding questions arise, stakeholders can consider targeted actions like a Heggstad petition, probate proceedings, or broader trust contest litigation. A Heggstad petition is narrowly focused on whether specific property should be treated as trust property, often offering a faster resolution than full trust litigation. Probate may be necessary if assets clearly fall outside trust control or when there is no valid trust. Trust contests address the validity of the trust document itself and can be time consuming. Choosing the best path depends on the facts, the clarity of evidence, and the client’s goals for timing, cost, and finality.
A limited Heggstad petition is often appropriate when there is strong documentary evidence showing the decedent intended the asset to be part of the trust despite a failure to retitle it. Documents may include the trust itself, transfer instruments, account records, and contemporaneous correspondence reflecting the settlor’s plan. When these materials collectively point to an intent to fund the trust, pursuing a narrowly tailored petition can provide a quick legal determination without engaging in wider litigation concerning the trust’s validity or unrelated assets.
A focused petition makes sense when ownership facts are narrowly contested and there is not a broader dispute over the trust document or settlor capacity. If interested parties generally agree on the settlor’s intent but differ only on whether title reflects that intent, a Heggstad petition can efficiently resolve that specific issue. This approach can reduce legal fees, concentrate evidence and testimony on a single matter, and allow administration to proceed with greater certainty without opening broader challenges to the estate plan.
A comprehensive approach may be warranted when multiple assets or complex transactions are in dispute, or when the facts suggest systemic funding issues. In these scenarios, a broader plan can include multiple petitions, related probate actions, or coordinated filings to address interrelated claims. Comprehensive representation helps manage interactions between trust administration, creditor claims, tax implications, and potential beneficiary challenges. When disputes are intertwined across assets or involve competing legal theories, a coordinated legal strategy offers a more complete resolution framework.
If concerns extend to the trust’s validity, the settlor’s capacity, or allegations of undue influence, a broader legal response may be necessary. Those matters often require fuller evidentiary development, witness examination, and possible litigation that goes beyond declaring specific assets to be part of a trust. Addressing these issues can affect distributions across the entire estate and may change overall outcomes. When validity or capacity is contested, pursuing a comprehensive plan ensures all related legal avenues are considered and that responses are integrated to protect client interests.
A comprehensive approach to trust and estate disputes allows for integrated handling of related legal questions, from asset retitling to beneficiary claims and administrative duties. This coordinated strategy can reduce the risk of fragmented outcomes, prevent inconsistent court rulings, and provide a clear timeline for resolution. Clients facing multiple contested issues benefit from a plan that considers tax consequences, creditor rights, and the potential need for supplemental filings. Ultimately, taking a holistic view often leads to more predictable results and smoother administration of the estate or trust.
When case facts suggest broader exposure, a unified strategy helps prioritize actions and allocate resources efficiently. Combining petitions, settlement negotiations, and necessary administrative steps can minimize delays and limit legal costs over time. Clients also gain the advantage of consistent advocacy across different forums, whether probate court, trust proceedings, or settlement talks. This continuity improves the likelihood that the decedent’s intentions will be honored and that beneficiaries receive distributions in a timely, orderly fashion under California rules and standards.
Comprehensive representation provides consistent case management, which can be particularly helpful when disputes involve multiple assets or competing claims. A single, well-organized approach reduces duplication, avoids conflicting filings, and centralizes evidence collection. This consistency ensures that important details are not overlooked and that court filings align with the client’s overall objectives. By maintaining a unified strategy, parties avoid piecemeal decisions that might leave unresolved issues, and administrators can more effectively implement a long-term plan for trust distribution and resolution.
Taking a comprehensive view helps identify and address potential complications early, which can limit surprises later in the process. Early identification of creditor issues, competing claims, or tax implications prevents delayed disputes and additional motions. Although a broader initial approach may require more up-front work, it often reduces long-term costs by avoiding duplicated efforts, repeated hearings, and extensions of litigation. The result is a clearer path to final distribution and stronger protection of the estate plan’s intent under California law.
Start by collecting all relevant documents, including the trust document, deeds, bank statements, transfer records, tax filings, and correspondence that reflect the settlor’s intent. Early fact gathering strengthens any petition and helps identify gaps in the record that may require affidavits or witness statements. Clear documentation often determines whether a limited petition will suffice or whether broader filings are warranted. This process also helps narrow contested issues, streamline court hearings, and present a persuasive case showing that the asset should be treated as trust property under California law.
Assess timing with respect to probate deadlines, creditor claims, and tax reporting requirements. Filing too late can complicate administration or allow creditors more opportunity to assert claims. Conversely, filing prematurely without sufficient evidence can weaken the case. Evaluate whether a targeted petition is appropriate or whether a more comprehensive approach is necessary due to broader disputes. Planning for the downstream implications of a petition helps protect assets, preserve the settlor’s intent, and promotes a smoother conclusion to trust administration.
You might consider a Heggstad petition if certain assets appear to have been intended for the trust but were never retitled, or if title discrepancies are blocking trust administration. The petition provides a formal legal mechanism to confirm that such assets are subject to trust terms, which may speed distribution and reduce the need for probate. It can also help prevent diversion of assets that should be used to satisfy trust obligations. When the settlor’s intent is evident but paperwork is lacking, a petition helps align administration with those intentions under applicable California statutes.
Other reasons include protecting beneficiary interests, clarifying trustee authority over specific property, and resolving disputes that could delay distributions. For trustees, confirming title can be necessary to manage or sell assets in accordance with trust terms. For beneficiaries, a successful petition secures intended inheritances and prevents assets from being treated incorrectly. When faced with ambiguous ownership or missing retitling, pursuing the appropriate legal path helps move the administration process forward with legal certainty and less friction among interested parties.
Typical circumstances include when real property was deeded to a decedent but intended to be governed by a trust, bank or investment accounts listed in an individual’s name instead of the trust, or when assets were assigned but paperwork was never completed. Other scenarios involve retirement accounts with unclear beneficiary designations, life insurance proceeds, or instances where a pour-over will directs assets to a trust but title was not moved. In these cases, a Heggstad petition can clarify ownership and allow trust administration to proceed consistent with the settlor’s plan.
A common issue arises when real estate intended for the trust remains titled in the decedent’s name. Deeds may not have been updated due to oversight, timing, or transaction complexity. When the trust directs that property be included, a Heggstad petition can present the evidence needed for the court to declare that the property is trust property for administration purposes. This remedy helps avoid probate and preserves the settlor’s distribution plan for heirs and beneficiaries under California law.
Some accounts are never retitled or beneficiary designations are not updated to align with the trust. Bank and investment accounts left in an individual’s name can create administrative delays and disputes if not addressed. A petition can help show that the decedent intended those accounts to be trust assets, allowing the trustee to access and administer funds for beneficiaries per the trust. Clear documentation and records are essential to establish the funding intent and to support a judicial declaration when necessary.
Sometimes transfers are initiated informally or by error, leaving documentation incomplete or missing. Whether due to oversight, mistaken belief that informal steps were sufficient, or miscommunication, incomplete paperwork can jeopardize the trust funding process. A Heggstad petition helps correct those situations by presenting evidence of intent and clarifying legal ownership. Taking prompt steps to gather records and statements reduces the risk of protracted disputes and supports a strong legal position to recognize the asset as part of the trust.
The Law Offices of Robert P. Bergman serves clients in Beverly Hills and throughout California on trust administration matters including Heggstad petitions. We assist with document review, evidence gathering, drafting petitions, and representing parties in court when necessary. Our goal is to provide clear guidance on whether a focused petition or broader legal approach best fits your circumstances. If you are dealing with untitled assets, unfinished transfers, or disputed retitling, we can help assess your options, explain the likely process, and take the steps needed to pursue a favorable outcome in trust funding disputes.
Clients rely on our firm for careful analysis of trust documents and close attention to relevant evidence when contesting or defending claims about trust property. We prioritize clear communication and practical planning so clients understand options and likely results. Our team works to identify documentation that demonstrates the settlor’s intent, prepares persuasive filings, and manages interactions with other parties to seek efficient resolution. We aim to balance client goals with a strategic approach that respects court procedures and statutory requirements in California trust law.
Handling trust property disputes often requires coordination with financial institutions, title companies, and other third parties to obtain records and address transfer issues. We guide clients through these steps, ensuring necessary notices, filings, and procedural requirements are completed accurately and promptly. When litigation becomes necessary, we focus on presenting a coherent factual narrative that supports the requested relief. Throughout the process we remain attentive to timing, cost considerations, and the practical aim of restoring orderly trust administration.
Our approach is client-centered and designed to reduce uncertainty while preserving the decedent’s intentions whenever possible. We explain the pros and cons of limited versus comprehensive approaches, help gather evidence to support a petition, and represent clients in hearings to obtain a clear judicial determination. For trustees and beneficiaries facing title discrepancies, our goal is to provide dependable guidance and advocacy to resolve ownership issues and enable trust distributions to proceed in a legally sound manner under California rules.
Our process begins with an initial review of the trust and related documents to determine whether a Heggstad petition is appropriate. We compile transfer records, tax filings, deeds, bank statements, and any correspondence that supports funding intent. After analyzing the facts, we advise on the likely procedural path, draft the petition and supporting declarations, and coordinate service to interested parties. If negotiated resolution is possible, we prioritize settlement to avoid undue time and cost. If litigation is necessary, we represent clients in hearings and present evidence to obtain a judicial declaration treating property as trust assets.
The first phase focuses on assembling all available documentation related to the disputed asset and the trust. This includes locating deeds, account statements, transfer paperwork, beneficiary designations, and any written communications showing the settlor’s intent. We interview relevant witnesses and consult with financial institutions when needed to obtain records. A thorough early review helps determine whether a straight-forward petition is viable or if additional discovery or broader filings will be necessary to support the claim that the asset should be treated as trust property.
Identifying the documents and witnesses that best demonstrate intent is a critical early task. This often involves contacting banks, title companies, and third parties who handled transactions for the decedent. Family members and witnesses who recall discussions about the trust can provide useful statements. Collecting these items early provides the foundation for a clear petition and reduces the chance of surprises during litigation. Accurate record-keeping and careful witness interviews strengthen the presentation to the court and help clarify the facts.
After collecting records, we evaluate the strength of the evidence and determine the most effective strategy. This evaluation considers whether a narrowly tailored petition is likely to succeed, whether settlement is possible, or whether a broader legal approach is required. We explain the anticipated timeline, potential costs, and likely outcomes so clients can decide the best path. Strategy formulation includes anticipating likely defenses, planning for necessary witness statements, and identifying any additional documents that should be sought before filing.
Once the facts are compiled and strategy is set, we prepare the petition and supporting declarations for filing in the appropriate California court. The filing includes a clear description of the property, evidence demonstrating the settlor’s intent to fund the trust, and legal arguments supporting treatment of the asset as trust property. We handle all requirements for service on interested parties and coordinate any initial notices needed. Proper drafting and procedural compliance are key to giving the petition the best chance at an early and favorable resolution.
Supporting declarations and exhibits document the factual basis for the petition and present records in an organized way for the court. These materials may include copies of the trust, deeds, account statements, and witness declarations that explain the context and intent behind transfers. Exhibits should be clear, with relevant passages highlighted and linked to the legal arguments. Well-prepared supporting materials reduce ambiguity and help judges understand the factual picture without unnecessary delay or supplemental filings.
After filing, the petition must be served on all interested parties according to California rules so they have an opportunity to respond. Proper service and notice are essential for proceeding lawfully and for the court to consider objections. In many cases, responsive negotiations occur after service, potentially avoiding contested hearings. If objections are filed, we prepare responses and plan for hearings or settlement discussions. Ensuring procedural steps are followed protects the integrity of the petition and supports a clear judicial determination.
The final stage involves hearings if objections arise, potential settlement negotiations, and implementation of the court’s decision. At hearings, evidence and witness testimony are presented to support the requested declaration that the asset is trust property. If the court grants the petition, orders are issued to reflect the asset’s trust status, enabling trustees to administer or transfer the asset according to the trust. If settlement is reached, we prepare appropriate documentation to carry out agreed terms and close the matter efficiently.
At hearings, courts evaluate documentary evidence and testimony regarding the settlor’s intent and the circumstances of any transfer or omission. Clear, well-prepared exhibits and witness declarations improve the chance of a favorable determination. Presenting a coherent narrative that ties documents to the legal standard is essential. We prepare witnesses, organize exhibits, and anticipate opposing arguments so the court can resolve whether the asset should be treated as trust property under applicable legal principles.
If the court grants the petition, we assist with carrying out the order, including retitling property, updating account ownership, and taking any administrative steps necessary for trust distribution. We also advise trustees and beneficiaries on how the decision affects ongoing administration and on any additional filings required to wrap up estate matters. When settlement occurs, we prepare and file the necessary documents to reflect the agreement. Our goal is to ensure the court’s decision or settlement is implemented correctly and that trust administration proceeds smoothly.
A Heggstad petition is a legal request to the court to declare that certain property should be treated as part of a trust even though it remains titled in an individual’s name. It is typically used when there is evidence that the decedent intended the asset to be governed by the trust but formal retitling was not completed, creating uncertainty in trust administration. The petition asks the court to align the asset’s legal status with the settlor’s intent so trustees can manage or distribute the property as directed by the trust. Filing a Heggstad petition makes sense when the ownership issue is narrowly focused and supported by documentation or reliable witness accounts showing intent. It may be preferable to full trust litigation or probate when the goal is to resolve asset treatment rather than challenge the trust’s validity. Proper evidence and careful procedural steps increase the likelihood of a favorable judicial declaration that clarifies asset ownership for administration purposes.
The timeline for resolving a Heggstad petition varies based on case complexity, availability of evidence, and whether interested parties contest the petition. In uncontested matters with clear documentation, resolution can sometimes be reached within a timeframe that allows for relatively prompt court review and entry of an order. When disputes arise or additional discovery is required, the process can extend as parties exchange filings, attend hearings, and present testimony. Planning for realistic timelines is important. Early document gathering and prompt service of interested parties can shorten the process. If settlement is an option, focused negotiation after initial filing can significantly reduce time to resolution compared to contested hearings or extended discovery.
Persuasive evidence in a Heggstad petition commonly includes the trust document itself, transfer instruments such as deeds or assignment forms, account statements showing intended transfers, and contemporaneous correspondence demonstrating the settlor’s intent to fund the trust. Declarations from individuals who witnessed the settlor’s actions or discussions about funding the trust can also carry weight. Tax filings and statements from financial institutions confirming transfer attempts are particularly useful in showing intent to include assets in the trust. Organized presentation of these materials, with clear linkage between documents and the claimed intent, helps the court evaluate the petition efficiently. Lack of documentation does not necessarily preclude success, but the strength of the petition often correlates with the clarity and completeness of the supporting evidence.
Yes, beneficiaries can file a Heggstad petition if they believe certain property was intended to be trust property and the trustee declines to pursue the matter. California law allows interested parties to seek declaratory relief to resolve ownership questions when trust administration is impeded by title discrepancies. Beneficiaries should gather supporting documents and consider discussing the situation with the trustee before filing, since voluntary resolution can save time and cost for all involved. When beneficiaries file, the court will require adequate notice to all interested parties and evaluate the evidence presented. If the trustee disputes the petition, the matter may proceed to hearing where documentary and testimonial proof will determine whether the asset should be treated as part of the trust.
Filing a Heggstad petition does not automatically lead to prolonged litigation, but it does initiate a formal legal process that provides interested parties the opportunity to respond. In many cases, the filing encourages negotiation and settlement once the factual basis is presented. If evidence is clear and objections are minimal, parties may reach an agreement that avoids contested hearings and results in an administrative resolution consistent with the trust terms. However, if objections are asserted or the facts are contested, hearings and additional discovery may be necessary. Preparing a thorough petition with strong supporting records from the outset improves the chance of resolving the matter without protracted litigation and helps manage potential legal costs and delays.
A Heggstad petition focuses specifically on whether particular property should be treated as trust property despite title discrepancies. A trust contest challenges the validity or terms of the trust itself, such as claims regarding the settlor’s capacity or undue influence. Probate actions address assets that are not governed by a trust and proceed under probate court procedures to distribute estate property. Each process serves different purposes and follows distinct procedural rules under California law. Choosing among these paths depends on the underlying issue: use a Heggstad petition when the central issue is asset ownership within a trust framework, consider a trust contest if validity is in doubt, and consider probate when assets clearly fall outside any trust. Careful fact assessment helps determine which avenue best meets client objectives.
Risks of filing a Heggstad petition include potential objections from interested parties that lead to contested hearings, the cost of litigation if settlement cannot be reached, and the time required to collect and present sufficient evidence. There is also the possibility that the court may determine the evidence is insufficient and deny the petition, which could leave the ownership issue unresolved and require alternative proceedings. Additionally, filing can prompt other parties to assert counterclaims or raise related disputes. Mitigating these risks involves thorough document collection, early outreach to interested parties to explore settlement, and careful preparation of evidence and declarations. Clear communication about objectives and likely outcomes helps set realistic expectations and reduce the chance of surprise developments.
Costs for pursuing a Heggstad petition depend on the amount of document collection, the need for discovery, whether hearings are contested, and attorney involvement required to prepare filings and present evidence. When a matter is straightforward and uncontested, costs are generally lower because filings and limited court appearances may suffice. If the petition is contested and requires extensive discovery, witness preparation, and hearings, costs can be higher accordingly. Evaluating the potential value of the asset and the complexity of the factual record helps inform cost considerations. Discussing fee structures, possible alternatives like negotiation, and whether a phased approach makes sense can help manage costs. Lawyers can often propose strategies that balance thorough preparation with cost control, aiming to resolve the issue in the most efficient manner consistent with client goals.
Heggstad petitions are generally aimed at property that was intended to be part of a trust but remains titled in a different name. For retirement accounts and life insurance, the situation depends on beneficiary designations and contract terms. Retirement accounts and life insurance proceeds are often governed by beneficiary designations rather than trust formalities, so whether a Heggstad petition is appropriate depends on the specific facts and how the settlor intended those assets to be handled. When account contracts or beneficiary forms create ambiguity, careful review of the designations and intent is necessary. In some cases, alternate procedures or coordinated filings may be required to bring these assets within the trust framework or to clarify beneficiary rights, and specialized steps may be needed to address plan or policy rules.
For an initial consultation about a Heggstad petition, bring the trust document, any deeds or account statements related to the disputed asset, beneficiary designations, tax records, correspondence about the asset or trust funding, and any relevant wills such as pour-over wills. If available, bring notes or affidavits from individuals who recall the settlor’s statements about placing assets into the trust. Providing as much documentation as possible at the start allows for a faster assessment of whether a petition is appropriate. Also be prepared to describe the sequence of events related to the transfer or omission, including dates, conversations, and any attempts to retitle property. This background helps evaluate the likely strength of a petition and informs recommended next steps for evidence collection, potential settlement efforts, or filing strategy.
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