The Practice
Located in Portland, Oregon, Cartwright Whitman Baer PC focuses on litigation regarding estates, trusts, guardianships, conservatorships, and elder financial abuse matters.
History
James Cartwright established the Cartwright Law Firm in 1975. Matthew Whitman joined the firm, then Cartwright and Associates, as an associate in 2004. In 2006, Sibylle Baer was hired as an associate. Associate Michelle Johansson joined the firm in 2007.
In 2011, Mr. Cartwright along with attorneys Matthew Whitman and Sibylle Baer, formed Cartwright Whitman Baer PC.
In Janaury 2012, Associate Christopher Ling joined Cartwright Whitman Baer PC.
Representative Litigation
December 2011: Josephine County Circuit Court, Clark County Superior Court
The firm had represented a trustee in defense of a beneficiary's objections to the trustee's administration of the trust. In 2008, at our recommendation, the trustee submitted a detailed accounting and petitioned the Josephine County Circuit Court for its approval. The beneficiary filed formal objections to that petition, but later withdrew the objections on the day before trial. The accounting was subsequently approved by the Court. The trust had a broadly-worded in terrorem ('no-contest') provision. The trustee contended that the filing of the objections triggered that provision, which had the effect of disinheriting the objecting beneficiary. After the trustor had died and the trust was ready for distribution, the firm associated counsel in Clark County, Washington and petitioned the Court to declare that the beneficiary's share was forfeit. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Clark County Superior Court agreed that the beneficiary had triggered the in terrorem clause, and declared that the beneficiary had by his own actions forfeited his share of the trust.
December 2011: Oregon Court of Appeals
The firm had represented the trustee of trust in defense of a disgruntled beneficiary's claim that he was entitled to three $500,000 distributions from the Trust, rather than the two distributions intended by the trust's settlors. The firm obtained summary judgment in favor of the trustee at the trial court level, and the beneficiary appealed. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that even if the beneficiary's novel and technical interpretation of the trust had any merit, the trustee had proved by clear and convincing evidence that the settlors intended only two distributions to the beneficiary. This case represents the first time the Court of Appeals has spoken regarding the application of ORS 130.220, allowing reformation of trusts, since that statute became effective in 2006. The result is that the trust may carry out the charitable purposes intended by the settlors.
October 2011: Marion County Circuit Court
Shortly after a child was born, her mother died as the result of medical malpractice. An estate was opened for the mother, and the personal representative retained an attorney on a 33-1/3% contingency fee (upon settlement) to prosecute the malpractice case. After investigating the case, the attorney asked that the fee agreement be increased to 50% of any settlement with the implied threat that he would resign. The personal representative agreed. The malpractice case was eventually settled, and the attorney received 50% of the settlement proceeds, plus his advanced costs. Thereafter, a guardian ad litem was appointed to represent the child, and the guardian ad litem retained our firm. We challenged the reasonableness of the 50% fee agreement, and also argued that there was no consideration for the increase in the percentage from 33-1/3% to 50%. After an evidentiary hearing, the Probate Court ruled in our favor on both counts, and the attorney was ordered to return in excess of $105,000 to the estate. The return of those monies will be to the benefit of the child, who is now 4 years old.
September 2011: Oregon Court of Appeals
The firm had represented the personal representative of decedent's estate and had filed an elder financial abuse lawsuit against decedent's son and his ex-wife. After a four-day trial in 2008, the jury determined that the son had financially abused his mother, and that his then-wife knew or should have known of the abuse and had permitted it to occur. The trial court also found that wife was liable for fraudulent transfers in their divorce in their effort to shield those assets from the mother and her representatives. Judgment was entered against son and his ex-wife for damages totaling $870, 000, plus an additional $110,000 in attorney fees. In September 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
June 2011: Clackamas County Circuit Court
We represented an attorney in the defense of a civil damages lawsuit against him under the financial elder abuse statutes. A former client of the attorney had sued him for money damages of $166,667 in economic damages, which, if awarded, would have been trebled by statute, and mandatory attorney fees. After a five-day jury trial, we prevailed, receiving an 11-1 verdict for the defense.
January 2011: Clackamas County Probate Court
The firm represented the daughter of a decedent. We contended that the holder of the decedent's power of attorney improperly changed the beneficiary designation of the decedent's life insurance, costing our client the $89,000 death benefit. We prevailed on summary judgment.
December 2010: Washington County Circuit Court
The firm represented the shareholders of a closely-held family corporation who were sued by the Personal Representative of the estate of their deceased mother, herself a shareholder. The plaintiff asserted a number of claims, including elder financial abuse, shareholder oppression, and fraud. We forced dismissal or abandonment of most of the damage claims against our clients and after trial, the trial court ordered our clients to repurchase the plaintiff's shares on terms more favorable to our clients than we had offered many months before.
Representative Litigation (cont.)
November 2010: Oregon Supreme Court
The firm represented a mother who was owed child support under a divorce judgment. The father died, in breach of his promise to maintain insurance for the benefit of the child. We contended our client was entitled to a share of life insurance proceeds the decedent had purchased after the divorce. We prevailed on summary judgment in the trial court. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed. We petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court granted our petition for review and reversed the Court of Appeals in a favorable decision, remanding to the trial court for further proceedings.
November 2010: Clackamas County Probate Court
The firm represented the trustee of a family trust, who had become the trustee on the death of her mother, the settlor. We asked the Court to declare that another beneficiary had violated the Trust's no-contest clause by suing his mother in a separate lawsuit. We prevailed after a two-day trial.
October 2010: Hood River County Probate Court
The firm defended the Personal Representative of an estate in a removal action. The Personal Representative had received most of the decedent's assets from his uncle, who had lived with the Personal Representative at the end of his life and whom the Personal Representative always had a close relationship. One of the decedent's estranged surviving siblings contended that the Personal Representative had received the decedent's assets. After a contested hearing the Court found those allegations groundless and denied the motion to remove him as Personal Representative.
September 2010: Multnomah County Probate Court
The firm petitioned for appointment of a conservator in a case where a disabled woman had been financially abused by her brother. (The firm had previously been involved in successful prosecution of an elder financial abuse claim against the brother, and successfully defended the resulting judgment on appeal.) Even after the successful elder abuse prosecution, the brother continued to seek to have his sister execute documents in his favor, including a satisfaction of the judgments against him. In the conservatorship action, the only objection was raised by the financial abuser. We prevailed after a contested hearing.
August 2010: Clackamas County Probate Court
The firm represented the only child of a decedent. She had been disinherited, and we contended that the will was invalid. We prevailed at trial when the respondent admitted that the will was the product of undue influence and therefore invalid.
July 2010: Washington County Probate Court
The firm represented decedent's only son in a will contest and motion to remove personal representative. The personal representative had petitioned for her appointment without disclosing to the Court that the Will under which she was nominated was a photocopy rather than the original, and that the original Will was last in the possession of the decedent and could not be found. We contended that as a matter of law the Will was presumed to have been destroyed with the intention revocation, and that as a result our client as the surviving child was entitled to the entire estate. We prevailed.
July 2010: United States District Court for the District of Oregon
The firm represented an Oklahoma resident, sued by his Oregon-resident brother in a claim arising from the estate of their father, who lived and died in Oklahoma. We succeeded in having the Oregon action dismissed for lack of personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, and the matter was eventually resolved to our client's satisfaction in Oklahoma.
May 2010: Josephine County Probate Court
We represented a son who had served for years as trustee of his mother's trust. We filed a petition seeking approval of his accounting for several years of management. His brother filed an objection. We forced withdrawal of that objection. The Court then appointed a respected Grants Pass lawyer as special representative to review the accounting and our client's transactions, and after a detailed review the special representative made no objection to the accounting. Our client's accounting was approved, and we collected attorney fees against the brother who had caused the litigation.
May 2010: Clackamas County Probate Court
The firm represented the beneficiary of an estate. A person who claimed to be her creditor sought to get an injunction preventing our client from receiving her distributive share of the estate. We succeeded in defeating the request for injunctive relief, and our client received her distribution.
March 2010: Multnomah County Probate Court
The firm represented the trustee of a family trust in a lawsuit to obtain exclusive possession of a piece of real property owned by the trust. (A trust beneficiary was in possession, and refused to vacate the premises or pay rent.) We prevailed on summary judgment. The beneficiary also brought counterclaims which triggered the trust's no-contest clause, and we sought the trial court's declaration that by doing so he had forfeited his rights under the trust. We prevailed on summary judgment in that action as well. The beneficiary brought posthearing motions for relief from the judgment, which we defeated.
February 2010: Multnomah County Circuit Court
The firm represented two daughters of a decedent; the decedent had been taken advantage of financially by her son, who had controlled her business and finances in the last years of her life. The son had served as Personal Representative of her estate; we successfully petitioned to have him removed as Personal Representative for conflicts of interest. After a seven-day trial a jury determined that the son owed his mother more than $450,000 at the time of her death, and judgment was entered against him in excess of $800,000.