Conspiracy Allegations To Go Back Into Fraudulent Estate Planning Pleading.

In the same action, but in a separate appeal, the law firm convinced the trial court to strike all conspiracy allegations from the plaintiffs’ pleading because Civil Code section 1714.10 bars the action. Civil Code section 1714.10, was enacted to combat “the use of frivolous conspiracy claims that were brought as a tactical ploy against attorneys and their clients and that were designed to disrupt the attorney-client relationship.” The appellate court reversed, finding the prefiling requirement of section 1714.10 inapplicable because none of the causes of action arose from an “attempt to contest or compromise a claim or dispute” as is required by the statute. The appellate court explained:  “Rather, [plaintiffs] say, the claims arose from transactional activities—siphoning off of assets through fraudulent estate planning, including the misappropriation of the Steuve’s assets through the diversion of those assets to entities created and controlled by the defendants.”  (McClamma Stueve v. Berger Kahn (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 3; December 18, 2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 327.