A probate advance is a sale, not a loan. A company pays an heir a sum of money today in exchange for a fixed slice of what the estate will eventually distribute to that heir. The paperwork is an assignment of a distributive share. Because it is structured as a purchase rather than a loan, it is not priced as interest, not regulated as lending, and not measured by an annual percentage rate — which is why the cost of the money is difficult to compare to any other kind of borrowing.
The transaction is legal, it is common, and for an heir with an urgent bill and a probate that will not close for a year, it is sometimes the right decision. What the marketing does not explain is the part that causes the trouble later: an heir’s share can carry more than one charge at once, and those charges are paid in a fixed order that the heir does not set. I call this the priority stack — the fixed, date-ordered line of charges against a single distributive share, paid first-in-time rather than in whatever order the heir expects. An heir who has already signed a contingency fee agreement, or who has already settled a claim against the estate by pledging part of her share, has encumbered that share. The advance company takes what is left after the charges that came first.
Nobody involved is required to explain that to the heir before she signs. Usually nobody does.
An heir learns, often within weeks of a death, that she stands to inherit. She also learns that California probate rarely moves quickly — that a personal representative may not have general authority yet, that a special administrator generally cannot distribute at all, and that a petition for preliminary distribution has its own timing and its own hearing.
The advance company solves the timing problem and prices the solution. The heir signs an assignment transferring the first dollars of any distribution — preliminary, partial, or final, in one payment or several — up to an agreed amount. The assignment is typically stated to be irrevocable and coupled with an interest, which is contract language meant to prevent the heir from unwinding it. It binds the personal representative once notice is given. The company then waits, and the estate pays it before it pays the heir.
Two clauses in these instruments deserve more attention than they usually get.
Most of these agreements make the heir personally responsible if her own conduct reduces or delays what the estate pays. Read literally, an heir could be told that asserting her rights in the estate, or settling a claim against it, triggered recourse against her. California has already answered this: a provision in one of these written agreements that permits the purchaser to seek recourse against the heir because the estate’s distribution turns out to be less than the assigned interest is void by statute — with a narrow exception for recourse arising from the heir’s own fraud or material breach of the agreement itself. (Prob. Code, § 11604.5, subd. (f)(4).) Ordinary administration — asserting a claim, settling one, waiting for a preliminary distribution — is not fraud and is not a breach. A clause written to reach beyond that exception is not enforceable as written, whatever it says on the page.
Many of these agreements give the company the ability to press for a sale of estate real property in order to accelerate its own payout. That converts a passive investor into a party with an incentive to force a transaction the family may not want, on a schedule the family did not choose.
This is the part that matters and the part nobody sends in writing.
A distributive share is a fund of finite size. More than one person can hold a charge against it at the same time. In California the general rule is straightforward and unforgiving: a charge created earlier is paid before a charge created later. A buyer cannot take free of an encumbrance that already existed, and an assignment executed in August does not leap over an interest created in July.
Three charges commonly compete for the same share.
When an heir signs a written contingency fee agreement, the lawyer’s right to be paid out of the recovery is secured by a lien on it. That lien arises on the day the agreement is signed — not when the case ends, and not when a court says so. It does not have to be filed or recorded to exist. It is senior to interests created afterward, even though the dollar amount stays unfixed until there is a recovery. \*(Cetenko v. United California Bank (1982) 30 Cal.3d 528, 531–534.)
Where an heir has resolved a claim brought against her or against the estate, the settlement is frequently secured by an assignment of the first dollars of her share. That is a charge too, and it carries its own date.
Whatever date the heir signed it.
An heir who signs a fee agreement in July, settles a claim in August, and sells a slice of her share at the end of August has built a three-charge priority stack — and has probably been told by nobody that the stack exists. If the estate is large enough, everyone is paid and the order is academic. If it is not, the last charge in line absorbs the shortfall, and the fight over who stands where begins at the moment of distribution, which is the worst possible moment to start it.
The tools exist. They do not self-execute, and most of them work best before a distribution is made rather than after.
Probate Code §§ 11604 and 11604.5 — the court can look at the deal. California does not treat an assignment of a beneficial interest as beyond examination. Section 11604 gives the probate court authority to inquire into the circumstances and the consideration for any transfer, agreement, or instruction directing distribution to someone other than the beneficiary, and to refuse distribution or order it on equitable terms if the consideration was grossly unreasonable or the transfer was obtained by duress, fraud, or undue influence.
Section 11604.5 layers additional, more specific rules onto purchasers who regularly buy beneficial interests for consideration — the advance industry’s own description of itself. It requires the written agreement to be filed with the court and served on the personal representative within fixed deadlines, requires specific disclosures (consideration paid, a description of the interest transferred, an itemization of fees), and voids outright any provision that holds the purchaser harmless beyond the beneficiary’s own fraud, expands the purchaser’s authority beyond the assigned interest, or lets the purchaser pursue the beneficiary personally if the estate ultimately distributes less than expected — again, absent the beneficiary’s own fraud or material breach. (Prob. Code, § 11604.5, subds. (d)–(f).)
On top of the disclosure scheme, the court may refuse to order distribution to the purchaser, or may order it on terms the court considers equitable, if the purchaser substantially failed to comply with those requirements, if the consideration was grossly unreasonable, or if the transfer was obtained by duress, fraud, or undue influence. (Id., subd. (h).)
Have you sold, assigned, pledged, or borrowed against any part of your interest in this estate? Has anyone offered to advance you money against it? Heirs do not volunteer this, because the transaction feels private and the marketing frames it as an advance rather than the sale it is. Every subsequent conversation about the estate is distorted if the answer is yes and nobody knows.
In the first days, a funding transaction can sometimes be unwound. After the money is spent it never can be. A lawyer who learns of an assignment from the estate’s administrator at the moment of distribution has lost every option that mattered.
A short, precisely worded notice sent to the personal representative, to estate counsel, and to the company — stating what charge exists, on what date it arose, and what should be withheld if anyone disputes it — costs almost nothing and turns a fight into a formality. Sent at the moment of distribution, it becomes a stakeholder proceeding, and the estate pays for that too.
A short private loan against a distribution that is genuinely coming, a petition for preliminary distribution filed as early as the statute permits, or a family allowance where one is available may each be cheaper than a discounted sale of the share. Those are not always available and they are not always faster. But an heir who has not priced them has not made a comparison — she has accepted an offer.
No. It is structured as a sale of part of an heir’s interest in an estate. That structure is deliberate: because it is not a loan, it is not priced as interest, not subject to lending regulation in the same way, and not disclosed as an annual percentage rate. An heir comparing an advance to a bank loan is comparing two things that are not measured on the same scale.
Generally yes. An heir’s interest in an estate is property and can be assigned. The assignment binds the personal representative once proper notice is given, and the estate pays the assignee out of the heir’s share when distribution occurs.
The remainder is still yours, but it is what is left after the priority stack against your share is paid down — your attorney’s lien, any settlement you secured with an assignment, and the advance company’s purchase, paid in the order the charges were created, not the order you’d prefer. If the share is smaller than expected, the charges do not shrink proportionally; the last one in line absorbs the difference.
Where the fee agreement was signed first, ordinarily yes. An attorney’s lien is created by contract and takes effect the day the fee agreement is signed, not when the case ends. (Cetenko v. United California Bank (1982) 30 Cal.3d 528, 534; Carroll v. Interstate Brands Corp. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1175.) Because different charges on the same fund are paid in the order they were created, a purchase made afterward generally cannot leapfrog a lien that already existed.
Sometimes, and the window is short. Under Probate Code section 11604.5, the probate court can refuse to order distribution to the purchaser, or order it on terms the court considers equitable, on any of three grounds: the purchaser substantially failed to comply with the statute’s filing and disclosure requirements; the fees or consideration paid to the heir were grossly unreasonable; or the transfer was obtained by duress, fraud, or undue influence. (Prob. Code, § 11604.5, subd. (h).) Whether one of those three applies depends on the deal, the amount, and whether the money has been spent. It is a question for counsel, promptly.
Many of these agreements contain a clause aimed at exactly that. Whether it can be enforced is a separate question from whether it is in the contract. If a family home is in the estate, this clause should be read before anything is signed, not after a demand letter arrives.
There are filing and disclosure obligations that can attach to purchasers of beneficial interests in an estate. An heir should not assume the transaction is invisible to the probate court, and should not assume the company has satisfied every obligation on its side.
Not necessarily, but California estate and trust deadlines are short and several of them run from events rather than from discovery. The useful step is a consultation now rather than a decision to wait and see what the estate pays.
Hackard Law’s practice pages on trust and estate litigation, financial elder abuse, and probate administration cover the underlying claims referenced here.
Families who recognize their own circumstances in this page are invited to contact the firm for a confidential consultation.
The offer is always for money now. The question is always where you land in the priority stack.
Michael Hackard | Hackard Law | California State Bar #71067
Hackard Law represents families throughout California. | hackardlaw.com
(916) 313-3030