Petition For Confidential Mediation: Fill & Download for Free

My standard, simple answer would be: you go to court to let the court decide which approach is best. This is one of the reasons to avoid co-executors — neither can use the attorney who had (probably) been representing them, because that would place the attorney in a conflict of interest against the other one.But, as somebody said, for every difficult situation there is a solution that is simple, clear, and wrong.Before taking the matter to court, of course, the two should discuss the matter with their attorney for that attorney’s advice. The attorney is probably familiar with the local probate court and can make a pretty good guess as to what the judge would do in this situation. The attorney may also be able to give them some guidance as to how much it is likely to cost to present the matter to the probate court, which will often, essentially, force them to agree on some course of action even if one or both hate the agreement.Modernly, there is much pressure to have the parties participate in a mediation before the court decides these cases. In my 11 years serving as a California probate judge, I was repeatedly amazed and delighted by the many cases that were resolved in mediation — often cases where the parties and their attorneys were adamant that mediation had zero chance of success. In mediation, the parties get together in a confidential setting, with a trained mediator who will lead them to look at more than just the narrow legal issue that would be decided by the court. Routinely, in probate conflicts, there’s a lot of emotional baggage driving the conflict. Getting the parties to address this directly is usually very helpful. (Sometimes they came back to court actually smiling at each other!) By contrast, if a judge decides the matter, the adversarial process will likely exacerbate the emotional issues.There is also the possibility if the issue is litigated that the judge will decide that both of the co-executors are so emotional and unreasonable that the judge must remove them both and appoint someone else, under the judges’ responsibility to protect the interests of all those interested in the estate.Incidentally, the process will be almost exactly same whether there are co-executors (nominated in the will), co-administrators (who petitioned for appointment but were not nominated in the will), or co-trustees of a “living” trust. Many people mistakenly believe that trusts somehow magically avoid all court proceedings. In my experience, trusts make bad cases worse because (a) the trustees often feel that they have the ultimate power, and (b) since there is initially no court proceeding it is more difficult and expensive for beneficiaries to get the court involved; this results in conflicts festering longer before they end up in the probate court where the trustees get a paradigm shift as to the extent of their power.

This is called management to give full time and dead line simultaneously.The Supreme Court on Wednesday set an October 18 deadline for conclusion of hearings in the protracted Ram-Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid land title dispute, a move that has raised the possibility of a verdict in the politically sensitive case in the middle of November.The target date for completion of arguments by both the Hindu and Muslim sides assumes significance as Chief Justice Shri Ranjan Gogoi who is heading the five-judge Constitution bench hearing the case, is due to demit office on November 17.The apex court also said the parties to the dispute can amicably resolve the matter through mediation if they want to but told lawyers from both the sides that it wanted to conclude the day-to-day hearings by October 18 so that the judges get almost four weeks time to write the judgment.The Court on Tuesday asked the counsels for the Hindu and Muslim parties to inform it about a tentative "time schedule" for concluding their arguments.The Constitution bench, which also comprised Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, also said it has received a letter from former apex court judge F M I Kalifulla, who was heading the three-member mediation panel, in which it was stated that some parties have written to him for resumption of the mediation process."There is an ancillary issue. We have received a letter that some parties want to settle the matter by way of mediation," the bench said, adding they may do so and the proceedings before the mediation panel can remain confidential.The bench said the day-to-day proceedings in the land dispute case have reached "an advanced stage" and will continue.The apex court on August 6 commenced day-to-day proceedings in the sensitive land dispute case as mediation proceedings initiated to find an amicable resolution had failed.The court had taken note of the report of the three-member panel, also comprising spiritual guru and founder of the Art of Living foundation Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate and renowned mediator Sriram Panchu, that mediation proceedings, which went on for about four months, did not result in any final settlement and it had to decide the matter pending before it.The court, which on March 8 referred the matter for mediation, had asked for in-camera proceedings to be completed within eight weeks, but later granted time till August 15 after the panel's earlier report said the mediators were "optimistic" about an amicable solution.The top court fixed the seat for mediation process in Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh, around 7 km from Ayodhya, and said adequate arrangements, including the venue of the mediation, place of stay of the mediators, their security, travel should be forthwith arranged by the state government.It had perused a report about the progress of mediation process till July 18 and said its contents will remain confidential.Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010Allahabad high courtjudgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.On December 6, 1992, the Babri Masjid, constructed at the disputed site in the 16th century by Shia Muslim Mir Baqi, was demolished, sparking communal riots in the country.So the supreme court is becoming ready to deliver the most awaited judgement of the world because almost the entire world is waiting for it .Thanks for reading.

Ram Mandir issue will be decided by the Supreme by hearing daily .Shri Narendra Modi ji made it clear that an ordinance to build a Ram Mandir would arise only after the Supreme Court, which is hearing the matter, delivers its verdict.He told in an interview with ANI“The ordinance on triple talaq was brought after the verdict of Supreme Court. We want the issue to be solved within the framework of Constitution. The ordinance on Ram Mandir can arise only after legal process gets over and Supreme Court gives its verdict," Modi said.However, he blamed the Congress, especially those who have appeared as lawyers in the dispute, for delaying the judicial process in the Ram temple issue. “I would urge the Congress not to allow their lawyers to delay judicial process," Modi added.When some decision of this case come out then only some decision can be taken by our Modi team.Now supreme court has taken this issue seriously.The Supreme Court had on July 18, asked the mediation panel to inform the court about the outcome of their proceedings as on July 31.The Supreme Court is set to commence day-to-day hearing from 5 August 2019 in the politically sensitive case of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute in Ayodhya after the efforts to arrive at an amicable settlement through mediation have failed.A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi will conduct the hearing.The bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer had on August 2 taken note of the report of the three-member mediation panel, headed by former apex court judge FMI Kalifulla, that the mediation proceedings which went on for about four months have not resulted in any final settlement."The hearing which will be on day-to-day basis until the arguments are concluded will start with the appeals arising out of the two suits.The learned counsel(s)...in the appeals arising out of the aforesaid suits may, for the convenience of the court, indicate the pleadings and the evidence on which they propose to rely, so that the officials of the Registry can keep the said documents ready for perusal of the court," the bench had said in its order.The top court had on July 18, asked the mediation panel to inform the court about the outcome of their proceedings as on July 31.The mediation panel, also comprising spiritual guru and founder of the Art of Living foundation Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate and renowned mediator Sriram Panchu, had said in its report submitted on Thursday that the Hindu and the Muslim parties have not been able to find a solution to the vexatious dispute.The apex court, which on March 8 referred the matter for mediation, had asked for in-camera proceedings to be completed within eight weeks, but later granted time till August 15 after the panel's earlier report said that the mediators were "optimistic" about an amicable solution.After the bench on August 2 passed the order, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for a Muslim party had raised several technical issues and said he will need 20 days to argue the various issues arising in the matter in detail and there should not be any curtailment on the hearing.While he was raising different aspects of the matter and how the appeals have to be heard, the bench had told him "don't remind us what we have to do"."We know there are many aspects and we will deal with all these aspects. Let the hearing start," it had said.Dhavan also raised the issue of pending writ petition filed by senior BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the application filed by a Muslim body.The court which had perused a report about the progress of mediation process till July 18, had said that its contents will remain confidential as per its earlier order.Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.On December 6, 1992, the Babri Masjid, constructed at the disputed site in the 16th century by Shia Muslim Mir Baqi, was demolished.The central government on January 29 this year moved the apex court seeking its nod to return the 67-acre undisputed acquired land around the disputed site to original owners.The 0.313 acre plot, on which the disputed structure stood before it was demolished by 'kar sevaks' on December 6, 1992, was within the 2.77-acre disputed premises., the plea said.The government had then acquired 67.703 acres, including the 2.77-acre plot, through a legislation in 1993. The Ram Janambhoomi Nyas (RJN) is the owner of as much as 42 acres of the acquired non-disputed land.The Centre's plea said that the RJN (a trust to promote construction of Ram Temple) had also sought return of excess land acquired to original owners.The Centre claimed that only 0.313 acre of land was disputed on which the structure stood before it was demolished by 'kar sevaks' on December 6, 1992.A week later, another petition was filed challenging the constitutional validity of 1993 Central law on land acquisition in Ayodhya near the disputed site, contending that Parliament has no legislative competence to acquire land belonging to the state.Seven individuals, including two Lucknow-based lawyers claiming to be devotees of Ram Lalla, said state legislature has exclusive power to make provisions on management of religious affairs inside its territory.The plea said the Acquisition of Certain Areas of Ayodhya Act, 1993 Act infringes right to religion of Hindus guaranteed and protected by Article 25 of the Constitution of India.So let us wait and hear the proceedings of supreme court daily.Thanks.