Author: Hoffman Forde

When “Enhanced” Becomes Misleading: Legal Risks of AI-Altered Listing Photos in California

When “Enhanced” Becomes Misleading: Legal Risks of AI-Altered Listing Photos in California

Artificial intelligence tools have moved quickly into the real estate marketing space. Realtors now regularly use software that can add furniture, brighten interiors, replace landscaping, or otherwise visually enhance listing photos. While many of these tools are marketed as a modern extension of traditional staging, their legal implications are materially different, particularly where they alter the perceived condition of a property.

Industry concerns around AI-altered listings have driven new regulatory action, as discussed in recent reporting from the Sacramento Business Journal on the growing scrutiny facing real estate agents who rely on AI-generated images in property marketing. Buyers and sellers should understand that these rules are not merely technical marketing standards but rather tied to long-standing prohibitions against misrepresentation in real estate transactions.

The Legal Line Between Presentation and Representation

Real estate marketing has always involved some degree of presentation. Professional lighting, wide-angle photography, and physical staging are well-established practices. What makes AI-driven image modification different is its ability to change the substance of what the viewer believes exists.

AI tools may, among other things:

  • Remove visible damage such as cracks, stains, or wear
  • Add built-in features, cabinetry, or fixtures that are not present
  • Alter finishes, flooring, or paint to appear newer or higher-end
  • Change landscaping or exterior features that affect curb appeal

These changes do more than help a buyer imagine possibilities. They can communicate an inaccurate condition of the property itself. That distinction is legally significant because California real estate law has long required sellers and their agents to avoid misleading representations about the physical characteristics of a property.

California’s Disclosure Framework for AI-Altered Images

As of January 1, 2026, California requires real estate licensees who use digitally altered or AI-generated images in advertising to clearly disclose that alteration and make the original, unedited image available. This requirement was enacted through Assembly Bill 723 and codified at Business and Professions Code section 10140.8.

The law focuses on material changes. Basic photo corrections that adjust lighting, contrast, or color balance without changing physical elements generally fall outside the disclosure requirement. By contrast, edits that add, remove, or modify physical aspects of the property must be disclosed, including virtual staging and AI-generated enhancements that affect a buyer’s perception of condition or layout. This becomes the broker’s responsibility and applies to all MLS listings.

This statutory framework reflects a broader principle embedded throughout California real estate law: marketing cannot convey a false impression, even if the misrepresentation occurs visually rather than through written statements.

Why Disclosure Alone May Not Resolve Liability

A common assumption is that adding a disclaimer or label automatically resolves legal risk. In practice, that assumption is risky.

California regulators and courts evaluate misrepresentation based on the overall impression created, not solely on whether a disclosure exists. If an AI-altered image depicts features or conditions that do not exist, disclosure may reduce but not eliminate exposure, particularly where a buyer relies on the image in deciding to pursue or continue a transaction.

This is especially true when alterations make a property appear to be in better condition than it actually is. Removing signs of water damage, foundation issues, or deferred maintenance can cross into material misrepresentation even if a disclosure accompanies the listing.

Potential Exposure Under Advertising and Misrepresentation Laws

This raises an increasingly common question: whether AI-altered listing images could expose agents or sellers to liability under California’s real estate advertising and misrepresentation statutes.

While Business and Professions Code section 1088 is frequently referenced in discussions of improper real estate advertising, potential exposure does not depend on that provision alone. California law broadly prohibits advertising and conduct that is false, deceptive, or misleading, including under Business and Professions Code section 17500, which governs false advertising more generally.

An AI-generated image that materially alters the perceived condition of a property could support administrative discipline by the Department of Real Estate, civil claims by buyers, or both. The fact that the misrepresentation is visual rather than textual does not insulate it from scrutiny.

Implications for Buyers and Sellers

For buyers, AI-altered listings warrant heightened caution. If a property appears unusually pristine or upgraded, buyers should inquire whether images have been digitally altered and request access to original photographs early in the process.

For sellers, aggressive visual enhancements carry their own risks. Transactions can derail once buyers encounter conditions that materially differ from what was marketed, increasing the likelihood of canceled escrows or post-closing disputes.

For agents and brokers, the stakes are highest. Regulatory discipline, reputational harm, failed transactions, and litigation exposure can follow if AI tools are used in a manner that is viewed as misleading rather than merely illustrative. California law instructs real estate professionals to either put the staged photos side by side with original photos or have a link easily accessible to the original photos. This gives buyers the opportunity to see the space as it exists, and limits exposure for potentially misleading marketing materials.

A Cautionary Path Forward

AI tools are likely to remain part of real estate marketing. The law does not prohibit their use outright, but it does demand restraint and transparency. The safer approach is to treat AI enhancement as fundamentally different from physical staging.

Once an image alters the apparent condition or features of a property, it enters legally sensitive territory. Disclosures help, but they are not a substitute for accuracy.

As regulators continue to refine standards around artificial intelligence, buyers, sellers, and real estate professionals should assume that visual representations will be evaluated under the same principles that govern written disclosures: accuracy, completeness, and good faith.

 

Need a Consult?

Contact Hoffman Forde today at (619) 546-7880 or intake@hoffmanforde.com. Our firm’s attorneys offer clear, strategic guidance to help with navigating the real estate market.

Disclaimer

The information in this post is considered attorney advertising under applicable California law. The contents of this post are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. The information may be incomplete or out of date. No representations, testimonials, or endorsements on this website constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of any legal matter.

Estate Planning for Military Members in San Diego County

San Diego County is home to one of the largest military communities in the world. With tens of thousands of active-duty service members and military families living and working here, estate planning is not an abstract or “later in life” concern, it is a practical necessity.

For military members, proper estate planning is about protecting family, maintaining control, and ensuring peace of mind in the face of uncertainty.

San Diego’s Unique Military Presence

As of 2026, San Diego County is home to approximately 110,000–120,000 active-duty service members and more than 118,000 military family members, including roughly 60,000 children. Military members and their families make up nearly 10% of the local workforce, underscoring their deep integration into the region.

The military footprint here is driven primarily by the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, with major installations including Naval Base San Diego, MCAS Miramar, and Camp Pendleton. Together, these bases account for a significant share of Navy and Marine Corps personnel worldwide. Because many service members are stationed in San Diego temporarily and may relocate frequently, having an estate plan properly tailored to California law is especially important.

Why Estate Planning Matters for Military Members

A common misconception is that estate planning is only for older individuals or those with significant wealth. In reality, estate planning is about planning for life, not just death.

A well-designed estate plan allows you to:

  • Choose who manages your finances if you’re unavailable or incapacitated
  • Appoint someone to make medical decisions on your behalf
  • Nominate guardians for your children
  • Decide who receives your assets and how
  • Minimize court involvement and protect your family’s privacy

Military service creates additional urgency. Service members often face heightened risk, extended deployments, and sudden relocations. When the unexpected happens, having a legally valid estate plan ensures your wishes are followed, rather than leaving critical decisions to default state rules.

What Happens If You Die Without an Estate Plan in California?

When a person dies without a will or trust in California, they are considered to have died “intestate.” In that case, California law, not the individual, determines how assets are distributed.

Intestate estates typically must go through probate court. A judge appoints an administrator and distributes assets under California Probate Code sections 6400–6455. These rules follow a rigid family hierarchy and do not take into account personal wishes, strained relationships, or modern family structures. Probate can be time-consuming, expensive, and emotionally difficult for surviving loved ones.

Under intestacy laws:

  • A spouse or registered domestic partner may inherit part or all of the estate, depending on circumstances
  • Assets may pass to children, parents, siblings, or more distant relatives
  • Unmarried partners, close friends, stepchildren (not legally adopted), and charities receive nothing

In rare cases, estates with no legal heirs can even pass to the State of California. Dying without a plan means giving up control over who inherits, who manages your affairs, and how quickly your family can move forward.

Key Estate Planning Tools for Service Members

California law provides several estate planning tools particularly valuable for military members, including wills, revocable living trusts, powers of attorney, and advance health care directives.

Advance Health Care Directives

An advance health care directive allows you to appoint someone you trust to make medical decisions on your behalf and to outline your wishes regarding medical treatment and end-of-life care. For service members, this document can eliminate confusion, prevent family conflict, and ensure timely care when decisions matter most.

Powers of Attorney

A durable financial power of attorney authorizes a trusted agent to manage banking, housing, taxes, and other financial matters during deployment or incapacity. Without it, family members may be forced to seek court approval simply to handle routine affairs.

Wills and Trusts

For service members with minor children, estate planning is essential. A properly drafted will or trust allows you to nominate guardians, set aside funds for your children’s care and education, and provide guidance to the court.

Many military families also benefit from revocable living trusts, which can help avoid California probate altogether. Trusts offer privacy, flexibility, and continuity, especially when family members live across different states or countries. They can also be used to distribute life insurance proceeds, including Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance, in a structured and responsible manner.

Estate Planning Through the Military: Pros and Limitations

Active-duty service members often have access to estate planning assistance through military legal offices, such as JAG. These services frequently provide basic wills, powers of attorney, and health care directives at no cost, making them a helpful option for straightforward or short-term needs.

However, military legal assistance is generally limited. Complex family situations, California real estate planning, tax-sensitive strategies, special needs planning, and long-term probate avoidance typically fall outside the scope of these services. Access may also end once a service member separates from the military.

Why Work With a California Estate Planning Attorney?

For many service members, working with a civilian estate planning attorney licensed in California provides a more comprehensive and lasting solution. A civilian attorney can tailor an estate plan to California’s community property laws, local probate procedures, and civilian assets such as real estate, businesses, and retirement accounts.

Just as importantly, a civilian estate plan provides continuity. Your attorney-client relationship and estate plan remain in place regardless of deployments or duty station changes. For military families facing unique risks and cross-jurisdictional challenges, a thoughtfully prepared California estate plan offers clarity, protection, and peace of mind.

 

Disclaimer

The information in this post is considered attorney advertising under applicable California law. The contents of this post are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. The information may be incomplete or out of date. No representations, testimonials, or endorsements on this website constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of any legal matter.

The $3.9 Billion Play: Private Equity, the Padres, and the Future of San Diego

When Private Equity Steps Up to the Plate

Few transactions in the recent memory of San Diego’s business community carry the structural elegance or the sheer audacity of the reported sale of the San Diego Padres to private equity billionaire José E. Feliciano and his wife, Kwanza Jones, at a valuation of $3.9 billion. That figure is not merely a headline; it is a signal. It is a statement about where the intersection of sports, real estate, and private capital is headed – and for those of us who counsel high-net-worth investors navigating complex transactions in Southern California, it is a development worth examining closely.

As a firm specializing in transactional, corporate, and real estate law serving private equity participants and institutional investors in the San Diego market, we see this deal as more than a change of ownership for a baseball franchise. We see it as a bellwether transaction that will reverberate across the East Village, downtown San Diego, and the broader regional economy for the next decade.

“The Padres sale shatters an MLB record, and quietly announces that San Diego has arrived as a destination for world-class private capital deployment.”

 

The Buyer: Feliciano, Clearlake, and the Architecture of a Sports PE Play

José E. Feliciano is not a passive trophy-hunter. He is the co-founder and managing partner of Clearlake Capital, a Los Angeles-based private equity firm he built from the ground up in 2006 alongside Behdad Eghbali. Today, Clearlake manages more than $90 billion in assets across technology, industrials, and consumer sectors. In 2022, Feliciano and a consortium of co-investors, including Todd Boehly and Mark Walter, acquired Chelsea FC for over £4.25 billion, instantly making Clearlake one of the most prominent PE players in global sports ownership.

The Padres acquisition, now reportedly agreed at a record $3.9 billion, bested a remarkably competitive field that included Detroit Pistons owner Tom Gores, Golden State Warriors co-owner Joe Lacob, and AS Roma and Everton owner Dan Friedkin – a roster of finalists that itself speaks volumes about the franchise’s perceived upside. Notably, the Padres drew three bids of at least $3.5 billion, underscoring that the market, not sentiment, drove this valuation.

 

Transaction Snapshot

Buyer: José E. Feliciano & Kwanza Jones

Valuation: $3.9 billion (prior MLB record: $2.42B, Steve Cohen / NY Mets, 2020)

Seller: The Seidler Family (owners since 2012; Peter Seidler purchased for ~$800M)

Pending: Approval by 75% of MLB’s 30 owners

Advisors: BDT & MSD Partners (sell-side financial advisor)

Historic Note: Feliciano becomes the first Puerto Rican-born owner of a major North American sports franchise; Jones the first Black female owner.

 

Market Context: Private Equity in Professional Sports: From Trophy Assets to Institutional Class

The conventional wisdom about sports franchise ownership, that it was the exclusive domain of eccentric billionaires pursuing passion projects, has been systematically dismantled over the last several years. What has replaced it is a sophisticated, data-driven recognition that professional sports franchises represent a genuinely scarce, inflation-resistant asset class with uncorrelated returns and structural barriers to entry that most institutional investors can only dream of.

The numbers support the thesis. Sports services deal activity reached $31.64 billion in 2024, nearly quadrupling the $8.81 billion recorded the prior year. The NFL, historically the most restrictive of major leagues, voted in August 2024 to permit private equity funds to acquire up to 10% passive stakes in teams,  a watershed moment. The NBA had already opened the door in 2020, with MLB following. Today, more than 74 North American sports teams are backed by or affiliated with private equity.

The investment thesis is compelling for reasons that align neatly with what sophisticated PE operators seek: predictable cash flows from broadcast rights, rising franchise valuations driven by media rights escalation and international expansion, and significant embedded real estate optionality. As PwC has observed, the average NFL franchise value rose from $1.2 billion in 2013 to $5.7 billion in 2024, a 375% increase in roughly a decade.

“Sports franchises now attract institutional capital precisely because they offer what most asset classes cannot: genuine scarcity, a captive audience, and a media rights engine that structurally grows faster than inflation.”

 

Acknowledging the Skeptics: The Mets Lesson – Capital Is Necessary, Not Sufficient

Intellectual honesty requires us to acknowledge the reasonable concerns that Padres fans (and thoughtful observers of PE-in-sports more broadly) will raise. The template most frequently cited is Steve Cohen’s tenure at the New York Mets, which offers both cautionary and optimistic lessons in equal measure.

Cohen, a hedge fund billionaire, purchased the Mets in November 2020 for approximately $2.42 billion and proceeded to deploy capital at a scale that genuinely transformed the franchise’s payroll posture, reaching a staggering projected payroll of $468.5 million in one offseason. Yet for all the spending, the Mets have managed just two postseason appearances in the years since, with inconsistent results on the field generating genuine frustration among a fan base that was sold a championship vision.

The lesson is not that private equity money ruins sports franchises. The lesson is more nuanced: capital deployment without operational clarity, roster coherence, and a patient long-term strategy can produce as much chaos as it does success. Cohen himself has acknowledged his impatience, noting publicly that he gets “more annoyed” with each passing year without a title. His willingness to spend has been consistently admired by fans, he ranks as the second-most liked owner in MLB surveys, but championship results require more than a large checkbook.

 

Point of Concern: The Financial-First Operator

PE ownership that prioritizes franchise appreciation and EBITDA optimization over competitive investment can erode fan trust, reduce payroll flexibility, and damage the brand equity that underpins long-term valuation.

 

Grounds for Optimism: The Operator-Owner Profile

Feliciano’s track record at Clearlake reflects an operational discipline, not mere financial engineering, that has grown the firm to $90B+ in AUM. His Chelsea experience, while mixed on the pitch, built the commercial infrastructure of a global brand.

What the Padres situation has that the Mets did not: a franchise already operating at the highest level of competitiveness. The Seidler-era Padres reached the postseason in four of the last six years, finished second in MLB attendance in 2025 behind only the Dodgers (who play in a stadium with roughly 13,000 more seats), sold out 72 of 81 home games that season, and generated gross revenues of $530 million. Feliciano is not inheriting a fixer-upper; he is acquiring a franchise with established fan equity, a proven roster core, and significant commercial momentum.

 

The Bull Case: Why the Padres Are a Compelling Private Equity Platform

For those of us who spend our professional lives analyzing the structural components of complex transactions, the Padres acquisition has the hallmarks of a deal structured around durable value creation rather than short-cycle financial extraction. Several factors support this view.

1. A Record Price Demands Long-Term Thinking

No sophisticated PE operator pays $3.9 billion, shattering the prior record by $1.48 billion, with a plan to hollow out the asset. At that entry price, the value creation strategy necessarily involves building, not cutting. Broadcast rights renewals, international sponsorship development, stadium experience investment, and ancillary real estate monetization are the levers that justify the purchase price. Feliciano and Jones have every financial incentive to run the Padres as a growth platform.

2. Feliciano’s Operational DNA Is a Feature, Not a Risk

Clearlake’s investment philosophy has consistently emphasized operational transformation rather than financial engineering. The firm’s $90+ billion AUM has been built on identifying underutilized assets and deploying management talent to extract value. Applied to a sports franchise, this translates to infrastructure investment, data-driven scouting, fan experience innovation, and the kind of commercial discipline that turns a well-loved regional franchise into a nationally relevant brand.

3. The Cultural Dimension Matters

Feliciano’s identity as the first Puerto Rican-born owner of a major North American franchise, and Jones as the first Black female owner, carries significance beyond symbolism in a San Diego market defined by its proximity to the US-Mexico border and its deep multicultural character. The opportunity to expand the Padres’ reach into communities that have historically under indexed in MLB fandom is a genuine commercial opportunity, and one that aligns perfectly with the franchise’s geographic footprint.

 

The Real Estate Angle – Petco Park as a Catalyst: The East Village Opportunity

For our clients active in San Diego real estate and development, the Padres sale is not merely a sports story; it is an urban planning story with significant investment implications. The history of Petco Park’s impact on East Village is already one of the most dramatic stadium-driven neighborhood transformations in modern American urbanism. Since the park opened in 2004, what was once a blighted warehouse district has been remade into one of downtown San Diego’s most desirable and rapidly appreciating neighborhoods.

That transformation is far from complete. The most consequential development now in motion is the East Village Quarter: a $1.5 billion, 5.25-acre mixed-use redevelopment of the former Tailgate Park area immediately adjacent to Petco Park. The project, a partnership between the Padres organization, Tishman Speyer, and Ascendant Capital Partners, envisions more than 1,800 residential units (including 270 affordable), 50,000 square feet of office and retail, and a 1.3-acre public park, all targeted for completion by 2035.

PE ownership of the anchor tenant (the Padres themselves) creates structural alignment between the franchise’s commercial interests and the surrounding real estate ecosystem. An owner motivated to maximize the long-term value of a $3.9 billion asset has every reason to invest in the vibrancy, infrastructure, and experiential quality of the neighborhood that surrounds it. The stadium-adjacent real estate development thesis is well-established; what changes under PE ownership is the sophistication and scale with which it can be pursued.

· East Village Quarter$1.5B mixed-use development: 1,800+ residential units, 50,000 sq ft of office/retail, and a 1.3-acre park. A Padres/Tishman Speyer/Ascendant Capital Partners partnership targeting completion by 2035.

· Revel at 611 Island Ave.A 40-story, 443-unit residential high-rise under development near Petco Park, preserving the historic façade of the 1869 Klauber-Wangenheim Building, emblematic of adaptive reuse demand in the corridor.

· East Village Square & Campus at the Park500,000+ sq ft of planned retail, entertainment, and office development north of the ballpark, along with tech and office buildings on Park Boulevard, a build-out that benefits directly from franchise activity and foot traffic.

· Hospitality & Luxury Residential Properties like The Legend, The Metropolitan at the Omni, and Park Terrace continue to command premiums for Petco views and direct stadium access. Institutional ownership of the franchise creates durability in the amenity value these properties monetize.

“A $3.9 billion operator does not own just a baseball team. They own the anchor of an urban ecosystem — and every sophisticated investor in the surrounding blocks benefits from that alignment.”

 

Our Perspective: What This Means for PE Investors in San Diego

Transactions of this magnitude do not occur in isolation. They compress timelines, validate markets, and trigger adjacent deal activity across the capital stack. For private equity participants, family offices, and institutional investors active in San Diego, the Padres sale should prompt a strategic reassessment of several questions:

What is the impact on East Village and downtown San Diego real estate valuations, and how does institutional franchise ownership change the long-term demand curve for mixed-use development in the stadium corridor? How should investors structure their exposure to the development pipeline around Petco Park, through direct real estate positions, preferred equity in development vehicles, or participation in commercial leasing driven by increased foot traffic? And what does Feliciano’s presence in the San Diego market signal about the appetite of global PE capital for further Southern California platform investments?

These are the kinds of questions our firm is built to help clients think through, from the structure of a real estate joint venture adjacent to a PE-owned anchor tenant, to the corporate governance considerations of co-investment alongside institutional sports operators, to the transactional mechanics of development partnerships that touch public infrastructure, municipal agreements, and private capital simultaneously.

 

Working with PE Investors in San Diego

Our firm advises high-net-worth individuals, family offices, and private equity sponsors on transactional, corporate, and real estate matters across Southern California. The convergence of sports ownership, private capital, and urban development around Petco Park represents exactly the kind of complex, high-stakes opportunity our practice is structured to navigate — from deal structuring and due diligence to regulatory compliance and long-term asset management strategy. Schedule a Consultation

 

Conclusion: The Long Game

José E. Feliciano and Kwanza Jones did not pay $3.9 billion for a baseball team. They paid $3.9 billion for a platform: a franchise with proven fan equity, a championship-caliber roster, a sold-out stadium, and a footprint in one of America’s most desirable and supply-constrained real estate markets. The investment thesis is long-dated, multi-layered, and deeply embedded in the urban fabric of San Diego.

Fan skepticism about private equity ownership is legitimate and should not be dismissed. The Mets’ experience demonstrates that even the most aggressive capital deployment cannot guarantee championships, and that the alignment between financial objectives and competitive objectives requires active management. But the structural conditions around the Padres acquisition, the price paid, the buyer’s operational profile, the franchise’s existing momentum, and the real estate ecosystem it anchors, suggest a story that is more likely to trend toward value creation than extraction.

For San Diego’s community of private equity investors, real estate developers, and institutional capital allocators, the message is clear: the franchise that has already transformed East Village once is now in the hands of operators who have every incentive to do it again, at scale, with sophistication, and with the full weight of a global PE platform behind it.

That is an opportunity worth watching closely. And for those positioned to participate in the ripple effects, it may be worth more than watching.

This blog post is intended for informational and marketing purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information contained herein reflects publicly available reporting and the author’s general professional observations. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading this content. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel regarding their specific circumstances before taking any action in connection with private equity transactions, sports franchise investments, or real estate development matters.

The Mills Act Advantage for Historic Property Owners

Is Your San Diego Property Eligible for the Mills Act? Why Historic Property Owners Should Take a Closer Look

San Diego is one of the most active jurisdictions in California when it comes to historic preservation incentives. For owners of qualifying historic properties, the Mills Act can offer substantial property tax relief while preserving the architectural character that makes many San Diego neighborhoods unique. According to recent reporting by the San Diego UT, San Diego County owners of historic properties who qualify for the incentive are saving 71%[1] on their property taxes.

Despite its benefits, many property owners are unaware that their home or building could, (or may already) qualify with the right legal and preservation strategy. As interest in historic designation grows, San Diego has become an especially strong place to evaluate Mills Act eligibility.

What Is the Mills Act?

The Mills Act (California Government Code Sections 50280–50290) is a California state law enacted in 1972 that grants property tax relief to owners of qualified historic properties. In exchange, owners agree to maintain and preserve the historic character of their property through a binding contract with the city.

Unlike typical tax incentives, the Mills Act recalculates a property’s assessed value using a specialized methodology that often results in significantly lower annual property taxes. The savings are intended to support ongoing maintenance, restoration, and long-term preservation.

Why San Diego Stands Out

San Diego administers one of the largest Mills Act programs in the state, with a level of participation that exceeds many other major California cities. The city has made historic preservation a core part of its land use and development framework, particularly in areas with strong architectural identity and historic housing stock.

For property owners, this means:

  • A well-established administrative process
  • Clear preservation standards
  • Demonstrated willingness by the city to approve Mills Act contracts
  • Long-term program stability

From a legal perspective, San Diego offers a relatively predictable environment for navigating historic designation and Mills Act approval when the process is handled correctly.

The Financial Benefits Can Be Significant

For qualifying properties, Mills Act participation can result in meaningful annual property tax reductions. While the precise benefit depends on the property’s characteristics and existing assessment, tax savings can be substantial enough to materially offset the cost of ongoing maintenance and restoration obligations.

Importantly, these benefits are not limited to single-family homes. Commercial buildings, mixed-use properties, and adaptive reuse projects may also qualify, making the Mills Act a valuable tool for a wide range of property owners.

In addition to tax relief, Mills Act designation can enhance long-term property value by formalizing historic status and preserving neighborhood character that buyers often view as irreplaceable.

Historic Designation Is a Legal Process, Not Just a Label

Qualifying for the Mills Act requires more than age alone. Properties must meet historic designation criteria under local law, which often focus on architectural significance, integrity, and contribution to the surrounding area.

The application process involves legal, historical, and land use considerations, including:

  • Evaluating eligibility for historic designation
  • Preparing required documentation and supporting materials
  • Negotiating the terms of a Mills Act contract
  • Understanding long-term obligations that attach to the property

Mistakes or omissions at the application stage can delay approval or foreclose eligibility altogether. This is where legal guidance becomes critical.

Why Many Eligible Properties Never Apply

Even in a city with a robust program, many qualifying properties are never evaluated for Mills Act eligibility. Common reasons include:

  • Lack of awareness that the program exists
  • Assumptions that designation is limited to landmark properties
  • Uncertainty about costs versus benefits
  • Misunderstanding the application and approval process

In practice, many property owners are surprised to learn that their home or building may already meet eligibility criteria or could qualify with modest restoration planning.

How Hoffman Forde Helps Property Owners Navigate the Mills Act

Hoffman Forde works with property owners to assess Mills Act eligibility and guide them through the historic designation, application, and contract process. Our approach focuses on both the legal and practical implications of designation, helping owners make informed decisions before committing to long-term preservation obligations.

Our services include:

  • Preliminary eligibility analysis
  • Coordination with preservation consultants and architects
  • Preparation and submission of application materials
  • Review and negotiation of Mills Act contracts
  • Strategic guidance on restoration and compliance obligations

Whether you are a homeowner, investor, or developer, early legal analysis can help determine whether the Mills Act aligns with your financial and long-term property goals.

Is Your Property a Candidate?

If you own an older property in San Diego, particularly in a neighborhood with historic character, it may be worth exploring whether Mills Act designation is an option. Even properties that have been altered over time may still qualify with the right strategy.

The Mills Act remains one of California’s most powerful tools for aligning preservation with financial incentives. San Diego’s commitment to the program makes it an ideal place for property owners to take advantage of that opportunity.

Interested in exploring Mills Act eligibility for your property?
Hoffman Forde can help you evaluate whether historic designation and Mills Act participation make sense for your property and guide you through each step of the process.

 

[1] Union Tribune Article 3/22/26

 

Disclaimer

The information in this post is considered attorney advertising under applicable California law. The contents of this post are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. The information may be incomplete or out of date. No representations, testimonials, or endorsements on this website constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of any legal matter.

From TikTok to the Courtroom: The Rise of “Lawfluencers” (and Why Clients Should Pay Attention)

There was a time when lawyers built reputations in courtrooms, boardrooms, and word of mouth among their peers.

Now, increasingly, they’re doing it in 30-second vertical videos.

Welcome to the era of the “lawfluencer”, attorneys who have turned platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube into pipelines for visibility, client acquisition, and, in some cases, outright monetization. The growth is not subtle. Social media has become a meaningful source of client generation, with a significant portion of lawyers reporting new engagements tied directly to online presence.

But as with most things in law, the real story isn’t the trend, it’s the risk.

This Isn’t Marketing. It’s Regulated Conduct.

Something important to understand is lawyers do not get to “log off” their ethical obligations when they log into TikTok.

The same rules that govern conduct in court apply online. That includes:

  • No false or misleading statements about services
  • No improper solicitation of clients
  • Strict confidentiality obligations
  • No creation of unintended attorney-client relationships

These are clear, baseline requirements under professional conduct rules and advertising regulations.

And yet, the structure of social media, fast, informal, personality-driven, encourages exactly the opposite behavior: simplification, exaggeration, and immediacy.

That tension is where things get interesting. And problematic.

The Business Model: Authority at Scale (Whether Earned or Not)

Influencers, by definition, monetize attention. Lawfluencers are no different.

The legal profession is now colliding with the “attention economy,” where authority is often measured in followers rather than credentials.

Some attorneys are doing this well and using platforms to educate and demystify legal issues.

Others? Not so much.

There are already reported instances of lawyers with substantial online followings facing ethics complaints tied to alleged lack of meaningful legal work or client service.

That’s the quiet issue here, in a world where increased visibility and following often equals assumed competence and credibility, clients may have misplaced trust in people where the only real credential they’re seeing is follower count.

The Real Legal Risks (Spoiler: It’s Not Just Embarrassment)

For clients, particularly developers, investors, and high-net-worth individuals, the risks of engaging with “lawfluencer” content can be catastrophic, and costly.

They are structural.

1. The “Advice vs. Content” Problem

Short-form content thrives on specificity, but legal advice requires nuance.

The line between “general information” and “legal advice” is not always obvious. And crossing it, even unintentionally can create liability or an implied attorney-client relationship.

2. Over-Simplification of Complex Legal Issues

Thirty seconds is rarely enough time to explain:

      • securities compliance
      • land use restrictions
      • tax structuring
      • or litigation exposure

But it is more than enough time to give someone a dangerously incomplete understanding of. This incomplete understanding could lead someone without proper legal advice to make decisions that could be hard to unwind once a lawyer with an attention span gets involved.

3. Confidentiality and Professionalism Failures

The casual tone of social media has already led to disciplinary issues, including improper disclosures and inappropriate commentary.

The profession’s rules do not bend simply because the platform is informal. Trusting a lawfluencer not to casually mention your case details on the web for the world, is a risk clients should be hesitant to take,

4. Advertising and FTC Exposure

In addition to being subject to bar rules about confidentiality and legal advice, lawyers operating as influencers may also be subject to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) standards governing endorsements, disclosures, and deceptive practices.

That is a regulatory overlay many attorneys are not fully accounting for.

The Profession’s Identity Problem

There is a broader issue here that the profession has not fully grappled with:

Is the legal industry comfortable with expertise being packaged as entertainment?

Because that is, in many cases, what is happening.

The traditional model, credibility built over time through experience and results, is now competing with a model where:

  • relatability drives engagement
  • virality drives reach
  • and confidence (not necessarily accuracy) drives audience trust

Incentives of social media and the obligations of legal practice are not naturally aligned. When the duty to the client gets replaced with a desire for an audience, the incentives for upholding the judicial system get murky.

What This Means for Clients

For our clients the takeaway is not to ignore lawfluencers.

It’s to contextualize them properly.

Practical Guidance:

  • Treat social media legal content as interesting food for thought, not as legal knowledge.
  • Vet the lawyer, not the following. Credentials, experience, and judgment still matter.
  • Be cautious about acting on generalized advice. Especially in high-stakes transactions.
  • Understand that not all “legal content” is regulated equally in practice.

A Final Observation

The rise of lawfluencers is not going away.

If anything, it will accelerate, because it works. It generates attention, and attention generates business.

But the legal profession has seen this movie before. Every new channel, from television ads to online directories, eventually collides with the same reality:

Law is a regulated profession with consequences for getting it wrong.

Social media doesn’t change that.

It just makes the mistakes public.

 

Disclaimer

The information in this post is considered attorney advertising under applicable California law. The contents of this post are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. The information may be incomplete or out of date. No representations, testimonials, or endorsements on this website constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of any legal matter.

Port of San Diego Lease for New Attraction Points to Shifting Trends in Waterfront Real Estate

A Legal Perspective on San Diego’s New Waterfront Lease and It’s Impact on Property Owners, by Adam Reifman

Hoffman Forde was recently fortunate enough to represent an ambitious local business that will be expanding their popular roller rink experience to a second location at Seaport Village this summer.

The newly announced lease for this unique and dynamic property is more than a tourism update. It is a clear indicator of how waterfront property in San Diego is being repositioned and how public agency leasing is integral in shaping that transformation.

From a legal and developmental standpoint, this project underscores a fundamental reality. Securing and structuring leases with the San Diego Unified Port District requires a deliberate strategy that contemplates a great deal more than traditional commercial terms. As a public entity governed by California’s Tidelands Trust, the Port prioritizes public access, economic performance, and long-term land use consistency. These priorities directly influence how leases are negotiated, approved, and enforced.

In negotiating this lease, the key issues were not limited to rent or duration. The process required alignment with public use mandates, operational flexibility, and the ability to deliver a concept that activates a high-profile waterfront location in a meaningful and sustained way while accommodating an overarching municipal development timeline. These are not unique challenges. They reflect the current standard for waterfront development across San Diego and throughout California.

For property owners, developers, investors, and HOA stakeholders, the implications are immediate. Public agencies are actively favoring experiential, high-traffic uses that extend activity beyond traditional retail models. This shift directly affects surrounding property values, leasing strategies, and redevelopment potential. Projects that fail to align with these priorities will face increasing difficulty securing approvals and long-term viability.

The timing is not incidental. San Diego’s waterfront continues to evolve under long-range redevelopment plans, and smaller lease transactions like this are often leading indicators of broader policy direction. Stakeholders who are not paying attention to how these deals are structured risk falling behind in a market that is becoming more competitive and more regulated at the same time.

The takeaway is straightforward. Waterfront leasing in California is no longer a passive process. It requires a clear understanding of public agency objectives, regulatory constraints, and market expectations. This project demonstrates that when those elements are addressed strategically, these leases can unlock significant value for both individual stakeholders and the broader San Diego real estate market.

 

Disclaimer

The information in this post is considered attorney advertising under applicable California law. The contents of this post are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. The information may be incomplete or out of date. No representations, testimonials, or endorsements on this website constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of any legal matter.

The Empty Homes Tax: When Housing Policy Pushes the Legal Envelope

In early March 2026, the San Diego City Council voted 8–1 to place an “Empty Homes Tax” measure on the June 2, 2026 ballot. The proposal would impose an annual tax on vacant second homes that are empty for 183 days or more in a calendar year, starting at $8,000 and rising to $10,000 in subsequent years. The version that advanced to the ballot also includes an additional surcharge for “corporate-owned” vacant homes, with higher amounts in the first and second years.

But if you only read the March coverage, you’d miss a large part of the conversation: this proposal is the endpoint of a longer, politically charged effort that started as a much broader tax and was narrowed only after significant opposition, legal concerns, and enforcement questions surfaced.

What the measure would do, as written today

The City’s Independent Budget Analyst (IBA) describes the proposed ordinance as a new tax on owners of “empty homes,” defined as residential dwelling units left vacant for more than half the year. If approved, the tax would become effective January 1, 2027, and the first tax bills would be mailed in the first quarter of 2028 for homes presumed vacant during 2027.

The IBA also lists a set of exemptions, including (among others) primary residences, bona fide leases, military relocation, certain disaster-related uninhabitability periods, owner death, and owner medical care. Importantly, the IBA notes that the City’s working estimate of impacted homes comes from a proxy dataset tied to the City Treasurer’s Rental Unit Business Tax, and that this approach introduces uncertainty and likely “data clean-up” challenges.

For developers and real estate professionals, the immediate takeaway is not just the nominal tax rate. The takeaway is that implementation depends on definitions, verification methods, exemption administration, and an enforcement mechanism that must stand up to both practical strain and legal scrutiny.

The original proposal was broader, sharper, and aimed directly at short-term rentals

The “Empty Homes Tax” voters will see is not the same policy package originally proposed. In October 2025, Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera advanced a framework described as the “Vacation Home Operation Tax to Preserve Housing,” which targeted both vacant second homes and whole-home short-term rentals, including properties rented out on platforms like Airbnb. That earlier proposal contemplated much larger reach and significantly higher revenue expectations, with public reporting describing a structure that could apply to thousands more properties and generate far more than the later IBA ranges.

That version sparked organized pushback from short-term rental hosts and industry groups, and it became a flashpoint for accusations about paid turnout and political influence at City Hall. In late January 2026, the City Council’s Rules Committee killed the broader proposal, and the March 2026 ballot measure is the “narrowed” successor that removed short-term rentals entirely.

This history is important because it explains why third-party interests took early positions and why some of those positions shifted once short-term rentals were excluded.

Third-party interests did not disappear, they recalculated

When the earlier proposal targeted short-term rentals, Airbnb and related interests treated it as an existential threat and prepared accordingly. One widely circulated report referencing Union-Tribune coverage noted Airbnb had raised substantial funds in anticipation of fighting the proposal and later indicated it would take a “neutral” stance once the revised measure removed short-term rentals.

That shift is not an endorsement of the new measure. It is a strategic recalibration after a key business category was removed from the tax base. For San Diego property owners, this matters because political resources tend to follow the most directly impacted stakeholders. When one stakeholder group is carved out, opposition can fragment, even when underlying legal and administrative issues remain unresolved.

Revenue projections are wide, and the City’s own analyst flags uncertainty

The IBA estimates a net positive fiscal impact ranging from $12.1 million to $23.8 million in the first year of implementation, with a second-year range of $15.3 million to $30.0 million. Those ranges are not a technicality. They reflect real uncertainty about how many homes will actually be taxable once exemptions are claimed, occupancy patterns change, or owners restructure usage to avoid the tax.

The IBA also benchmarks other jurisdictions and highlights a recurring pattern: early unit counts and revenue estimates are frequently overstated, with higher-than-expected exemption activity and administrative challenges once the law is operational. For a city already facing fiscal strain, this should concern every voter, including those who support housing policy reform, because uncertain revenue paired with new administrative burden is a recipe for downstream pressure on enforcement practices.

Legal vulnerability is not hypothetical, it was raised inside the Council chambers

Councilmember Raul Campillo was the sole “no” vote and cited concern about moving forward without a legal review memo demonstrating the measure can withstand litigation. External critics have echoed legality concerns. The San Diego County Taxpayers Association publicly opposed the proposal, citing concerns about legality and taxpayer protections.

A vacancy tax that depends on contested definitions, proof burdens, and enforcement discretion creates several obvious litigation pathways. The point here is not to predict outcome. The point is that the City chose to advance a measure that its own elected members and outside watchdogs describe as legally exposed.

“All politics are local,” but housing law is increasingly state-driven

California has spent the past several years limiting local discretion in housing approvals and downzoning. SB 330, among other statutes, requires written findings and evidence-based standards before denying or reducing qualifying housing development projects. State agencies also frame SB 330 as a tool to “remove barriers and impediments” and improve certainty through vesting mechanisms such as preliminary applications.

This is where City Hall’s posture becomes difficult to defend as consistent. San Diego’s leadership frequently speaks about housing urgency and the need for housing production. Yet, at the same time, the City has engaged in highly visible local pullbacks and restructurings of housing-related policy tools. In June 2025, the City Council voted to cap the number of ADUs permitted on single-family lots, reversing an earlier incentive program that allowed substantially more units in transit priority areas. In February 2026, the City Council approved reforms that shift historic designation appeal power toward elected officials, explicitly to balance preservation rules against housing production.

When cities tighten one set of incentives while imposing new taxes and compliance burdens elsewhere, the result is not coherent housing policy. It is regulatory volatility, and volatility is the enemy of investment, permitting strategy, and predictable project delivery.

Why Hoffman & Forde opposes this measure

Hoffman & Forde is steadfastly opposed to arbitrary and capricious legislation that burdens property owners without clear legal durability, reliable administration, or a demonstrated connection between the burden imposed and the stated housing outcome. This is especially true when the City’s own fiscal analysis underscores uncertainty about taxable unit counts, enforcement infrastructure, and ultimate impacts on affordability.

The City may argue this is “targeted” because it affects fewer than 1% of properties. That framing misses the land use point. The measure is not a zoning reform. It is a high-dollar annual tax instrument that depends on ongoing classification decisions and recurring compliance processes. Processes that cost taxpayer dollars.

If San Diego wants housing production, there are proven pathways: objective standards, predictable entitlements, lawful streamlining, and consistent use of state housing tools that already constrain local discretion. A vacancy tax might be debated as a policy preference, but it should not be advanced as a substitute for legal clarity and consistent pro-housing governance.

Practical guidance for owners, investors, and developers

If you own a second home in San Diego, or you are evaluating acquisition, disposition, or conversion strategies, you should focus on four practical issues:

  1. Classification risk: whether the property could be deemed vacant under the ordinance’s definition and how exemptions would be documented.
  2. Entity ownership implications: the ordinance contemplates additional tax treatment for homes not owned by a natural person, which is relevant to LLC and trust structures used for legitimate planning purposes.
  3. Lease strategy and documentation: the IBA’s summary treats a bona fide lease as a key exemption category, meaning documentation quality will matter.
  4. Market effects and timing: implementation is described as beginning in 2027 with billing in 2028, which affects how owners model carrying costs and evaluate near-term sales or long-term rental conversion.

Hoffman Forde advises clients to evaluate these questions early, not after a ballot passes, because structural decisions are hardest to unwind once enforcement procedures are in place.

Disclaimer

The information in this post is considered attorney advertising under applicable California law. The contents of this post are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. The information may be incomplete or out of date. No representations, testimonials, or endorsements on this website constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of any legal matter.

A $4 Mistake Can Kill an Eviction: Why California Courts Demand Precision in 3-Day Notices

In California, unlawful detainer cases move fast. That speed comes with a tradeoff: courts expect absolute technical precision. Even small mistakes can derail an eviction before it ever reaches the merits.

A recent decision, Heffesse v. Guevara, 330 Cal.Rptr.3d 139 (Cal. App. Div. Super. Ct. 2025.), is a reminder that when it comes to three‑day notices to pay rent or quit, “close enough” is not good enough.

What happened in Heffesse v. Guevara

The landlord served a residential tenant with a three‑day notice demanding unpaid rent. The notice listed a monthly rent amount that was $4.44 higher than the rent stated in the lease. The additional charge came from a local municipal fee the landlord believed could be passed through to the tenant.

The tenant challenged the notice, arguing that the amount demanded did not match the lease and improperly included charges that were not defined as “rent.”

The court agreed. The unlawful detainer action was dismissed.

Not because the tenant didn’t owe money.
Not because the landlord acted in bad faith.
But because the notice was technically incorrect.

Why the court invalidated the notice

California unlawful detainer law is unforgiving by design. Because eviction is a summary proceeding that limits a tenant’s defenses, courts strictly enforce the statutory notice requirements.

The court focused on two issues:

  1. Rent must mean rent.
    Only amounts that qualify as “rent” under the lease or applicable law can be included in a three‑day notice. Fees, surcharges, or pass‑throughs that are not clearly defined as rent cannot be added.
  2. Consistency matters.
    The notice listed a different rent amount than the lease and the complaint. That discrepancy created ambiguity, which the unlawful detainer statutes are designed to prevent.

Even though the difference was small, the error was enough to render the notice invalid.

Why this matters for landlords and property managers

This case highlights a common and costly mistake: treating notices as routine paperwork rather than legal documents.

Including the wrong amount, even by a few dollars, can result in:

  • dismissal of the eviction,
  • delay of possession,
  • additional rent loss, and
  • restarting the process from the beginning.

In some cases, repeated notice defects can also weaken a landlord’s credibility if the dispute escalates.

Best practices to avoid notice problems

Before serving a three‑day notice, landlords and property managers should:

  • Confirm the lease definition of rent.
    Do not assume that all recurring charges qualify as rent.
  • Separate fees from rent unless clearly authorized.
    Registration fees, administrative charges, or municipal pass‑throughs require careful analysis.
  • Match the lease, notice, and complaint exactly.
    Any inconsistency invites dismissal.
  • Review notices before service.
    A quick legal review can prevent weeks or months of delay.

The takeaway

Unlawful detainer cases are not decided on fairness alone. They are decided on compliance.

Heffesse v. Guevara is a reminder that precision is the price of speed in California eviction law. When notices are drafted carefully, they move cases forward. When they are not, even a $4 mistake can bring everything to a halt.

If you have questions about eviction notices, rent demands, or compliance with local ordinances, it is worth addressing them early, before a minor error turns into a major setback.

Disclaimer

The information in this post is considered attorney advertising under applicable California law. The contents of this post are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. The information may be incomplete or out of date. No representations, testimonials, or endorsements on this website constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of any legal matter.

Lost Will Presumption & Modern Technology

Introduction: The Original Will Requirement

Did you Know an Original Paper Will is required to Probate a Last Will & Testament? Oral wills are generally unenforceable. Copies of a will are also generally not acceptable.

A person who dies (“Decedent”) without a will is said to have died “intestate”, or without a last will and testament. The laws of intestate succession would apply to a person who dies without a will with the Decedent’s estate being distributed to the Decedent’s intestate heirs which simply translated would be to the Decedent’s applicable next of kin in the order of priority by legal relations such as spouse (if applicable), children (if applicable), grandchildren (if appliable), parents (if applicable), siblings (if applicable), etc.

Many people create wills to pass on their estate to their chosen heirs. A will is a legal document that must be executed under certain formal conditions and is meant to convey the last wishes and property of the person (“Testator”) making the last will and testament. A will is a writing that complies with the formal requirements for a last will and testament.

Formal Requirements for a Valid Will in California

So, what is a required for a valid will in California?

Formalities are required for valid will in California.

Types of Wills in California

What are the types of wills in California?

  1. Witnessed Will: Basically, a will is a witnessed will when the will is witnessed and signed by the person making the will with two disinterested parties who witness the execution of the Testator’s will and sign the will along with the Testator.
  2. Holographic Will: Basically, a will (not witnessed) that has the material terms of the will in the Testator’s handwriting and signed by the Testator.

Modern Technology and the Probate System

Will the probate law catch up with modern technology widely utilized and accepted?

More and more people are going paperless with their important documents. We frequently use copies and electronic records nowadays. We live in a digital world and digital records are now the norm. People save their important records electronically using files formats like .pdfs, .doc., .tiffs, .jpg, photocopies, video, etc. Paper is almost a thing of the past. People save their important (and legal) documents on their networks, computers, and more frequently in the cloud. People electronically sign important legal documents nowadays. An authenticated email request can be sent for an electronic signature, binding the party signing the electronic documents. E-signatures are widely accepted today and are legally binding. It wasn’t always that way. But that is a blog for another day.

Can you imagine video Last Will & Testaments or DocuSign Last Will & Testaments? The technology is widely used and readily accessible in our modern-day society. I think I have seen video wills in a movie at some point. The legal process has not caught up with the current technology. The probate legal process has a long history that goes way back before California was a state and the US was a country. The passing of estates has been around for thousands of years. So, you can see why the law has not caught up to the technology. There are formal traditions and rituals that have a very long history, whereas the digital revolution is relatively new. One day we may see video last Will & Testaments admitted to probate or Docusign Last Will & Testaments.

The Original Will Requirement in Probate

The Original Will is required and must be deposited with the court to be admitted to probate. Generally speaking, even in litigation, you can use a copy of document (subject to the other side stipulating to its authenticity). People use copies of documents all the time and rarely use the original document. However, there is one document where you still need the “Original” paper document. That document is your last will and testament. Without the original will the “Lost Will Presumption” would apply.

The Lost Will Presumption

Probate Code Section 6124

California Probate Code Section 6124 States:

“If the testator’s will was last in the testator’s possession, the testator was competent until death, and neither the will nor a duplicate original of the will can be found after the testator’s death, it is presumed that the testator destroyed the will with intent to revoke it. This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.”

Let’s break that down:

If no “Original” will is found, the will is presumed destroyed, with an intent to revoke the will by the Testator. Probate Code section 6124 establishes a presumption concerning lost wills. The presumption is the lost will was destroyed and revoked. This is called the lost will presumption.

Accordingly, if the original executed will is unlocatable the lost will presumption applies, and the will is presumed revoked. As a result, the property will pass via intestacy in probate or spousal property petition, via a small estate affidavit, through a trust, or through another legal process with the court as the case may be.

Case Law Supporting the Lost Will Presumption

Case law supports Probate Code 6124’s lost will statutory presumption. In Lauermann v. Superior Court the court held under statute providing that when neither testator’s will nor a duplicate original of the will can be found after the testator’s death, it is presumed that the testator destroyed the will with intent to revoke it, the term “duplicate original,” does not include a photocopy not personally signed by the testator and the witnesses. Lauermann v. Superior Court, 127 Cal.App.4th 1327 (2005).

A presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence requires the trier of fact to assume the existence of the presumed fact unless contrary evidence is introduced, but once evidence negating the presumed fact is presented, the trier of fact must decide the case under the applicable burden of proof without regard to the presumption simply by weighing the evidence. Estate of Trikha, 219 Cal.App.4th 791 (2013). At this point an evidence code analysis is required, which is beyond the scope of this blog.

What If the Original Will Cannot Be Found?

What if you can’t find the original last will and testament? What about a copy?

The Lost Will Presumption applies, and the will was presumed revoked. A petitioner could seek to admit a copy of the will to be admitted to probate. They would have to do so to the court’s satisfaction to rebut the lost will presumption.

There are ways to admit a lost will since the presumption is rebuttable, For example, Probate Code Section 8223 permits the proving of a lost or destroyed will. The code requires the petition for probate of the will to include a written statement of the testamentary words or their substance. If the will is proved, the provisions of the will shall be set forth in the order admitting the will to probate. The question whether a document is clearly and distinctly proved to be a true copy of an original will is one of fact for the trial court. In re Moramarco’s Estate, 86 Cal.App.2d 326 (1948).

Will Contests and Litigation Risks

If the will is being contested, the matter may not be easily resolved. The matter could have various heirs litigating the validity of the will to be admitted to probate. Then it’s a question of does the court admit the copy of the will to probate? The evidence at the trial on the validity of the will may be how the matter is resolved. Hopefully not, but this is one example of a will contest. There are other ways to contest a will for example (1) lack of capacity, (2) undue influence, etc.

What Must Be Done With the Original Will?

What are you required to do with the “Original” will?

If there is a will, the ORIGINAL Last Will and Testament must be deposited with the court before it can be admitted to Probate. The party seeking to admit the will to Probate is the Petitioner. The Petitioner is usually seeking to be appointed as the personal representative of the deceased (“Decedent”) to act on behalf of the Decedent’s Estate.

If the petitioner is granted the authority by the court, Testamentary Letters will issue from the court granting the petitioner the authority to act on behalf of the Decedent’s Estate as the “Personal Representative” of the estate.

Holographic Wills

What about holographic wills?

Holographic Wills are admissible in a California.

Probate Code section 8222 states:

“A holographic will may be proved in the same manner as other writings.”

What is a holographic will?

Probate Code Section 6111 states:

Basically, a holographic will is a will that is not witnessed but the material terms of the will are in the Testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. The Original holographic Will is still required to admit the Will to probate.

Again, an Original Will is required to be probated in the California Courts. So, the court will verify the will is the original will even if its holographic. The will must be deposited with the court with the petition to probate the will. If the court admits the copy to probate an order would issue and testamentary letters would issue authorizing the admission of the copy of the will wherein Testamentary Letters will Issue authorizing a personal representative to act on behalf of the estate. But if the Petitioner does not have the original holographic will, the likelihood of the admission of the copy is reduced absent rebutting the lost will presumption.

Historical Background and Illustrative Cases

Some interesting information I discovered while researching this blog.

The presumption has been around long before California was a state with its roots in English common law.

Agatha Christie based a novel on the issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poirot_Investigates#The_Case_of_the_Missing_Will

There was also a famous case(s) that were the longest running civil lawsuits in America. A number of the suits were litigated by some of the most famous lawyers in the country. Litigators like Daniel Webster, John A. Campbell, Francis Scott Key and Reverdy Johnson all ensured that her case remained in the front pages of the news. (citation Wikipedia).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myra_Clark_Gaines

The case demonstrates that the presumption of a lost will’s revocation can be overcome with sufficient evidence of its existence and a lack of intent to revoke by the testator.

Conclusion

Conclusion keep your original will in a safe place because it will be required if you want your last will and testament admitted to probate. That is until we see video last will and testaments become the norm under a future law that accounts for the technological developments in the digital age. The probate laws go way back and like most laws are behind where the widely utilized and accepted technology currently exists.

 

Hoffman Forde Secures Summary Judgment in Contract Dispute, Releasing $100,000+ in Escrow Funds to Sellers

San Diego, CA | April 1, 2026

Hoffman Forde recently achieved a significant victory for its clients in a contract dispute arising from a failed real estate transaction. Following a buyer’s breach of the purchase agreement, the firm successfully moved for summary judgment, securing a decisive ruling in favor of the sellers. The court’s decision resulted in more than $100,000 in escrow funds being released to our clients, along with an award of prejudgment interest, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Power of Summary Judgment

The ruling demonstrates the power of summary judgment in civil litigation. When material facts are undisputed, this mechanism allows the court to deliver justice without the significant delay and expense of a full trial. Courts can, and will, hold parties accountable for contractual obligations, particularly where key provisions are designed to protect against exactly this type of risk.

While every dispute is unique, this result underscores the value of a decisive litigation strategy and careful contract enforcement when transactions do not go as planned.

Market Implications

Outcomes like this also help reinforce confidence in the transactional process. They signal that courts will uphold negotiated agreements and impose real consequences when those agreements are breached. That stability is essential for residential and commercial real estate transactions to function effectively and predictably.

The team at Hoffman Forde remains dedicated to protecting the interests of both buyers and sellers in both transactional matters and real estate litigation. Our attorneys bring deep experience and a decisive approach to contract disputes, ensuring our clients’ rights are vigorously enforced.