Practical Guidance for Handling Minor’s Compromises in California

Advertisers in this issue:
Effres & Efrres
Fox Law Corporation
Krycler Ervin Taubman & Kaminsky
Law Offices of Lawrence C. Noble
Lawyers' Mutual
Lewitt Hackman
One Legal
Scheideman Design
Valley Community Legal Foundation

Download this issue of Valley Lawyer.
 

By Justin J. Effres, Effres & Effres, LLP

Civil settlements involving minors in California are more complex because they are subject to vigorous court oversight designed to protect children. No matter how straightforward the liability facts may seem, and no matter how cooperative the parents may be, a settlement is not enforceable unless a judge approves it through a Minor’s Compromise petition. This safeguard protects minors from unfair or inadequate settlements, and it also protects defendants and insurers by ensuring the release is binding.

Because this topic sits at the intersection of civil practice and probate procedure, it can feel unfamiliar even to seasoned litigators. This article offers a practical overview of how Minor’s Compromises function, how they protect children, and what courts typically expect from practitioners.

Why Minor’s Compromise Approval Is Required

Under Probate Code section 3500, settlement of a minor’s claim requires court approval in nearly all circumstances. Parents cannot simply sign a release and bind their child. If the settlement is never approved by the Court, the minor can pursue the claim again after turning eighteen, even if the defendant or their insurer has already paid the agreed amount.

Insurance companies understand this risk. For that reason, they usually insist on an Order approving the Minor’s Compromise before tendering funds. In some situations, they will even pay the filing fees when accepting a carefully drafted Code of Civil Procedure section 999 policy-limits settlement opportunity, because the Court’s approval Order is the only mechanism that fully extinguishes the minor’s claim. Practitioners engaging in settlement discussions should always consider how the Court is likely to assess the fairness of the settlement in the approval process.

Where to File: The Probate Court’s Role

Before a Minor’s Compromise can be submitted, a guardian ad litem must be appointed. In most cases, the parent who first contacts the attorney and retains counsel is appointed as the guardian ad litem at the commencement of the civil action, and that same parent later signs and submits the Minor’s Compromise petition as the guardian ad litem.

If a civil action is pending, the Minor’s Compromise is often filed in that same civil department. However, some counties, most notably Orange County, require these petitions to be filed in the probate division even when the civil case is active. The reason is that the Probate Code governs the court’s oversight of a minor’s property, which includes any litigation recovery, so those courts route all Minor’s Compromises through probate.

In Orange County, practitioners are also advised to review the probate notes in advance of the Minor’s Compromise hearing. There is no tentative ruling system, but the probate notes identify any potential deficiencies in the petition and provide an opportunity to correct them before the hearing.

Expedited Minor’s Compromises: When No Hearing Is Needed

California permits an expedited procedure for certain Minor’s Compromises when specific requirements are met. The authority is found in California Rules of Court, rule 7.950.5. When a petition qualifies for this procedure, the court may approve the settlement without requiring a hearing.

A petition may qualify for expedited approval if several elements are satisfied, including, but not limited to:

• The settlement does not exceed fifty thousand dollars, or it represents the applicable policy limits,
• The case does not involve a wrongful death, and
• The petitioner’s attorney was not selected by the insurance company or the defendant.

Even when these criteria are met, the Court may still set a hearing if any portion of the petition, such as the medical documentation, attorney fee request, or structured settlement proposal, requires clarification.

Why Courts Scrutinize These Petitions

The careful review that judges apply to Minor’s Compromises is the product of long experience. In one matter from the late 1980s, three children were severely burned when an underground electrical vault exploded. Their initial settlement was approved by the Court based on representations that the structured settlements had a much higher value than they actually did.

My dad, Steven Effres, became involved after the family learned the true cost of the structures. He moved to set aside the prior approval Order, presented evidence showing that the present-value cost of the structured settlement was far lower than the settlement amount represented by the defendant and by the initial attorney hired by the family, and persuaded the Court that fraud had been committed on both the minors and the Court. The approval was vacated, and the case was subsequently resolved for a significantly higher amount.

That experience helped shape today’s expectations for full transparency about annuity costs, payment schedules, net recovery, and attorney fees. Courts want to know the actual cost of the structured settlement, not the projected future payouts alone. They want to understand the present value of the recovery, what the minor will actually receive, and why the proposed arrangement is in the minor’s best interest.

Attorney Fees in Minor’s Compromises

Minor’s Compromises always require judicial approval of attorney fees. California Rules of Court, rule 7.955, instructs courts to consider several factors when evaluating a fee request. These include the risk assumed by counsel, the amount of time and skill required, the result obtained, and whether the fee is reasonable compared to the work performed.

Contingency fee lawyers often assume significant risk when representing minors. Courts recognize this and will approve reasonable fees when supported by evidence of risk, complexity, and the quality of the result. In expedited petitions, many practitioners choose to reduce their fee voluntarily when a modest reduction meaningfully increases the minor’s net recovery. Courts appreciate this approach, and it can streamline the approval process.

Blocked Accounts and Structured Settlements

Once approved, the settlement funds must be protected. The two primary options are blocked accounts and structured settlements.

Blocked accounts are simple and safe, but they rarely earn meaningful interest. Structures can provide tax-free growth under federal tax law governing physical personal injury settlements, and they can create predictable future payments for education or other needs.

Because the tax-free status requires that the insurer purchase the annuity directly, the structure must be negotiated before the release is signed. Practitioners should compare proposals from multiple brokers to ensure that the minor receives the best available payout.

Another important consideration is the payment schedule. Some structures propose payments well into adulthood. Unless there is a documented need, such as a brain injury or cognitive impairment, courts will often decline to approve long-term structures because former minors frequently sell those streams at heavy discounts. Counter-intuitively, a structure that pays out at or near age eighteen can be safer and more protective.

A Recent Example from Practice

We recently resolved a dental malpractice case for a fourteen-year-old boy whose oral surgeon negligently extracted his lower wisdom teeth. During the procedure, the surgeon breached the protective bony barrier known as the lingual plate with his drill, entered the lingual soft tissue, and severed the lingual nerve. As a result, the minor permanently lost taste and sensation to the affected half of his tongue.

The medical evidence was compelling. CBCT imaging showed the bony defect, and surgical exploration confirmed a transected nerve. After filing suit and conducting discovery, we served a detailed statutory settlement offer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998, supported by medical analysis and a damages breakdown. The defense ultimately accepted our final demand, and we then sought approval in the probate department.

With the Minor’s Compromise petition, we submitted declarations outlining the work performed, the medical consultations required, the litigation history, and the financial analysis supporting the settlement. We also obtained structured settlement proposals from multiple brokers and worked with the family to select the plan that best met the minor’s needs.

At the hearing, the Court met the minor and the petitioner, reviewed the proposed structure, examined the medical evidence, and considered the fee request. The Court found that the settlement and structure were in the minor’s best interest and granted an Order approving the Minor’s Compromise.  

Conclusion

Minor’s Compromises are an essential safeguard in California practice. They protect minors, but they also protect lawyers and insurers by ensuring that settlements are complete, enforceable, and fair. Mastery of the process requires familiarity with the Probate Code, the Rules of Court, and the expectations of local judges. With careful preparation, transparent communication, and thoughtful structuring, these petitions can provide children with meaningful, long-term security and give families confidence that the legal system is serving their best interests.

Justin J. Effres is a trial lawyer and partner at Effres & Effres in Agoura Hills, where he represents plaintiffs in serious injury and wrongful death cases. He serves as Chair of the Litigation Section of the San Fernando Valley Bar Association and is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). He lives in the Valley, close to where he grew up, with his wife, their son, and their 100+ pound dog.