Kimberley V. Deede

Attorney Profile

Top Rated Estate & Trust Litigation Attorney in San Diego, CA

Chhokar Law Group, P.C.
 | 10945 Vista Sorrento Pkwy, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130
Phone: 858-384-5757
Fax: 858-384-5758
Selected To Rising Stars: 2018 - 2021
Licensed Since: 2011
Practice Areas:
  • Estate & Trust Litigation (80%),
  • Estate Planning & Probate (20%)
    Attorney Profile

    A partner at Chhokar Law Group, P.C., Kimberley V. Deede handles cases of estate, trusts, conservatorship, litigation appeals and financial elder abuse for businesses, individuals, fiduciaries, financial institutions and beneficiaries. With almost a decade of experience, she is also highly qualified to take on legal matters concerning disputes between beneficiaries, trustees, validity of trust documents, issues regarding lack of capacity, undue influence or mismanagement of estate assets. Kimberley's practice also includes contested conservatorship proceedings. 

    A graduate of Western Washington University, where she earned a Bachelor of Arts in international business in 2007, Ms. Deede also obtained a Juris Doctor from the University of San Diego School of Law in 2011. During her time in law school, she was actively involved with the Women’s Law Caucus, the Law Students for Community Service and Student Consumer Attorneys. In the San Diego Superior Court, she also gained experience as an intern.

    Ms. Deede is a member of the American Bankruptcy Institute, the California Mortgage Association, the Welsh Inns of Court, the USD Alumni Association, the San Diego County Bar Association and the American Bar Association. Admitted to practice in California, she also works extensively with cases of real estate and business litigation, representing businesses of all sizes in the United States Bankruptcy Court, the United States District Court and the California Supreme Court.


    Practice Areas
    • 80%Estate & Trust Litigation
    • 20%Estate Planning & Probate
    Focus Areas

    Will Contests, Guardianships & Conservatorships, Probate & Estate Administration, Trusts


    top-imageSelected to Rising Stars for 4 years

    Rising Stars: 2018 - 2021

    Email Me

    To: Kimberley V. Deede
    Super Lawyers: Potential Client Inquiry


    The information contained in this web site is intended to convey general information. It should not be construed as legal advice or opinion. It is not an offer to represent you, nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship. The use of the internet or this contact form for communication is not necessarily a secure environment. Contacting a lawyer or law firm email through this service will not create an attorney-client relationship, and information will not necessarily be treated as privileged or confidential.

    About Kimberley Deede

    Admitted: 2011, California

    Professional Webpage:

    Bar/Professional Activity:

    • Provisors, San Diego Estate and Succession Planning Affinity Group, Executive Committee
    • Probate Attorneys of San Diego, 2016
    • Welsh Inns of Court
    • Estate Planning Group Network, 2016
    • Trust and Estate section of the State Bar of California, 2017
    • USD Alumni Association
    • American Bankruptcy Institute
    • San Diego County Bar Association
    • California Mortgage Association
    • American Bar Association

    Pro bono/Community Service:

    • Woman’s Law Caucus

    Scholarly Lectures/Writings:

    • California: Appellate Decision Upholds HUDRegulated Face-to-Face Meeting with BorrowerPosted By USFN, Wednesday, February 6, 2013Updated: Monday, November 30, 2015 February 6, 2013   by Kimberley V. DeedePite Duncan, LLP – USFN Member (California)The California Court of Appeals has adopted an expansive application of HUD’s requirement of face-to-face meetings prior to foreclosure for FHA-insured home loans. Pfeifer v. Countrywide Home Loans, 2012 WL 6216039 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2012). The face-to-face meeting requirement applies to loans secured by deeds of trust with language that specifically references compliance with “regulations of the Secretary” or HUD.The Pfeifer court, relying heavily on the Virginia Supreme Court opinion in Mathews v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, 283 Va. 723 (April 20, 2012), rejected a multitude of defenses presented by the lender and held that HUD regulations were incorporated by reference into the deed of trust and, thus, a failure to satisfy the face-to-face meeting required under HUDregulations is grounds for injunctive and declaratory relief precluding foreclosure until the lender complies with the HUD servicing regulations. (See 24 CFR 203.604(b)).The regulation provides five exceptions to the face-to-face meeting requirement. 24 CFR 203.604(d). The most notable exception subject to interpretation provides that the face-to-face meeting is not required when the mortgaged property is not within 200 miles of the mortgagee, its servicer, or a branch office of either. 24 CFR 203.604(d)(2). The regulation, however, fails to identify what constitutes a “branch office.”HUD had previously released an article noting that, for the purposes of face-to-face meetings, the term “branch office” is only to be interpreted as a “servicing office.” Notwithstanding, the Mathews court held that the common definition is controlling and the term “branch office” includes “every type of business and service supplied by the mortgagee, including loan origination,” despite whether the office holds qualified or adequately trained staff. The Pfeifer court noted the issue but declined to rule as to the proper interpretation of “branch office.” Thus, it is unclear whether the 200-mile exception applies in relation to loan servicing offices, loan origination offices, or offices providing general banking services. However, if the California courts follow the expansive interpretation of the term “branch office” as proposed in the Mathews decision, the exception would essentially be eliminated for those lenders and servicers who have loan origination, bank branch, and servicing offices throughout the state of California.Finally, the Pfeifer court noted that violation of the face-to-face requirement only provides grounds for injunctive and declaratory relief and does not provide a basis for a claim for monetary damages. Furthermore, the decision appears to be limited to pending foreclosures and is likely inapplicable to invalidate completed foreclosure sales., Author, California: Appellate Decision Upholds HUD Regulation Face-to-Face Meeting with Borrower, U.S. Foreclosure Network, 2013
    • Lawyers in both bankruptcy and litigation practice are often questioned by clients as to the effects of defaults, foreclosures, lawsuits and judgments on their credit report.  For example, how will your client’s credit be affected if they file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy as compared to Chapter 13? Will your client’s credit report be affected differently if they elect to allow their lender to foreclose as compared to executing a deed in lieu? How long does it take for your client’s credit rating to recover? Are the effects of these events permanent? Is there any way to expedite recovery of your client’s credit score? Bankruptcy and litigation attorneys examining credit reports and client documents should be able to recognize violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Panelists discussed what sort of “red flags” an attorney should recognize.  Panelists also discussed both the nature of FCRA violations and the available remedies.  , Panelist, Fair Credit Reporting Act- How to Answer You Client's Most Common Consumer Reporting Questions, San Diego County Bar, Bankruptcy Law Section, 2015

    Educational Background:

    • Western Washington University, B.A. in International Business, 2007
    Find Me Online
    Show More
    Office Location for Kimberley V. Deede

    10945 Vista Sorrento Pkwy
    Suite 100
    San Diego, CA 92130

    Phone: 858-384-5757

    Fax: 858-384-5758

    Kimberley V. Deede:

    Last Updated: 5/6/2021

    Page Generated: 0.25046515464783 sec