This week: Updates on three previous topics.

We reported recently on a California Court of Appeal decision, in a case titled In re Rachel L., that threatened to curtail the rights of parents to "home school" their children. We noted that the court's ruling, if it were to hold up on further appeal, appeared to criminalize the home schooling of children by non-credentialed parents or tutors, unless they were participants in a proper "independent study" program. The decision also at least suggested that home schooling might not be allowed at all if a comparable curriculum was available in the local public schools.

The Court now has granted a motion for rehearing of the Rachel L. case. The granting of the motion means that the prior decision is automatically vacated, and is no longer binding on anyone.

In most cases, the granting of a rehearing means that the parties to the case are asked to submit supplemental legal briefs and that a date will be set for further oral argument. But in cases of particular public significance, a court may ask for amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs from government agencies or relevant organizations. In the Rachel L. case, according to the Home School Legal Defense Association, the Court of Appeal has done just that, asking for "amicus curiae" briefs from the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, California Department of Education, Los Angeles Unified School District, the Sunland Christian School, and three California teacher unions. The Court said it will also consider applications from other groups to file "amicus" briefs.

Based on these events, it appears that the Court of Appeal appreciates the controversy its decision has generated, and is making efforts to solicit a wide range of views before holding further oral argument or issuing any further decision.

* * * * *

We also discussed recently the "Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2008" (H.R. 5244), a bill introduced by Representative Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.). Rep. Maloney, who chairs the House Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee, has described her bill as comprehensive credit card reform legislation, designed to restrain industry abuses while fostering free market competition.

A hearing on the bill has now taken place before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit. House Financial Services chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is trying to move the bill forward. However, Republicans are advocating a cautious approach, based on the fact that the Federal Reserve is creating new rules to ban unfair and deceptive credit card practices. In fact, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute, Sandra Braunstein, director of consumer and community affairs for the Federal Reserve, said that the agency is reviewing the Maloney bill and may incorporate some of the bill's language in the new rules.

The American Bankruptcy Institute also reported that banks are arguing against the bill, on the ground that it would prohibit them from structuring credit card terms on the basis of a particular customer's credit risk, resulting in higher annual fees and interest rates across the board.

* * * * *

Finally, some of you may recall the New Year's edition of this column, in which we discussed several quirky old California cases. One of them, an 1892 case called Byrne vs. Byrne, stood for the proposition that you can't sue yourself.

Now, more than a century later, we have Wagner vs. Wagner, a new California Court of Appeal case, in which the appellate court has ruled that if you are going to present a claim to yourself, it can't merely be presented mentally.

Let me explain. When Genevieve Wagner died, the assets of her living trust were to be divided equally between her two children, Claire and Kent. The terms of the trust provided that after Genevieve's death, Claire would replace her mother as trustee of the trust, and accordingly, Claire would administer the trust assets.

Claire had taken care of her mother as Genevieve's health declined. After Genevieve passed away, Claire wanted to pay herself almost $200,000 from trust assets in compensation for the care she had provided Genevieve during the final four years of her life.

Kent objected to the payment, and argued that Claire had missed a Probate Code deadline for making any claims against the trust. For her part, Claire contended that she certainly had made a timely claim, because she (as claimant) had mentally presented it to herself (as trustee). Claire argued that she was entitled to submit an oral claim (or, as Kent derisively called it, "a secret mental claim").

As far as the record shows, Claire made this contention with a straight face. But if she made it with a smile, the Court of Appeal wiped it off her face. The Court rejected Claire's argument, and ruled that when a statute requires the making of a claim, the claim has to be made in writing; in other words, making the claim "mentally" doesn't suffice. "Absent the necessary documentation," the Court said, "Claire, as trustee, was prohibited from allowing her own claim".

* * * * *

Peter C. Bronson, of Nevada County, is a partner in the Sacramento offices of Kelly Lytton & Vann LLP. His law practice emphasizes creditors' rights, insolvency, commercial litigation and mediation. Write him at HYPERLINK "mailto:pbronson@klmvlaw.com" pbronson@klmvlaw.com. This column is not intended as legal advice in any specific business situation or dispute; specific strategic decisions always depend upon the specific facts.