Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Lucy Mancini Newell was designated as the trustee and sole beneficiary of her parents' trust. After her father, Arthur Mancini, passed away, Newell discovered that he had amended the trust to name his caregiver, Neneth Rollins, as the trustee and sole beneficiary. Newell challenged the validity of these amendments and, upon learning that Rollins used trust assets to purchase real property, recorded a lis pendens against the property and sought to impose a constructive trust on it.The probate court granted Rollins' motion to expunge the lis pendens, ruling that Newell's petition did not contain a "real property claim" as defined by the Code of Civil Procedure section 405.4. The court concluded that Newell's petition sought to invalidate the trust amendments and change the trustee, but did not directly affect the title or possession of the real property.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that Newell's petition did indeed contain a real property claim because it would affect the title to the property if successful. The court noted that the trustee holds legal title to the trust's property, and a change in trustee would change the name on the title. Therefore, the petition would affect the title to the Van Nuys property.The Court of Appeal granted Newell's petition for writ of mandate, directing the probate court to vacate its order expunging the lis pendens and to enter a new order denying Rollins' motion to expunge. The court also awarded Newell her costs in the proceeding. View "Newell v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Allison J. Littlefield filed a verified petition against Scott Littlefield, David Littlefield, and Denise Sobel, who are co-trustees of The Pony Tracks Ranch Trust and its sub-trusts. The petition alleged misuse of Trust funds, concealment of information, conversion of Allison’s personal property, wrongful removal of Allison from the board, and imposition of restrictions on her and her husband’s use of the Ranch. Allison sought removal of the co-trustees, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the Trust, and declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order enjoining the co-trustees from harassing, disparaging, or defaming her.The San Mateo County Superior Court denied the co-trustees' special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, concluding that the co-trustees failed to show that Allison’s petition arose from protected activity. The court also denied Allison’s request for attorney’s fees, finding that the anti-SLAPP motion was not frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion, agreeing that the co-trustees did not meet their burden of showing that the petition arose from protected activity. The court found that the co-trustees’ motion was overreaching and did not identify specific allegations of protected activity. The court reversed the trial court’s denial of Allison’s request for attorney’s fees, determining that the anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous because no reasonable attorney would conclude that the motion had merit. The case was remanded for a determination of the appropriate award of attorney’s fees for Allison. View "Littlefield v. Littlefield" on Justia Law

Allison Littlefield filed a verified petition against her brothers, Scott and David Littlefield, and her aunt, Denise Sobel, who are co-trustees of The Pony Tracks Ranch Trust. The petition sought their removal as co-trustees, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and the Trust, and requested declaratory and injunctive relief. Allison claimed that the appellants misused Trust funds, concealed information, converted her personal property, restricted her use of the Ranch, and failed to address misconduct by an employee, Stacey Limbada, who allegedly harassed Allison and her husband.The San Mateo County Superior Court denied the appellants' special motion to strike the petition under California's anti-SLAPP statute, concluding that the appellants failed to show that Allison's petition arose from protected activity. The court also denied Allison's request for attorney's fees, finding that the motion was not frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the anti-SLAPP motion, agreeing that the appellants did not meet their burden of showing that the petition was based on protected activity. The court noted that the appellants' motion failed to identify specific allegations of protected activity and improperly sought to strike the entire petition or all causes of action without distinguishing between protected and unprotected conduct.However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of Allison's request for attorney's fees, finding that the anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous. The court held that any reasonable attorney would agree that the motion was totally devoid of merit, as it did not demonstrate that the petition sought to impose liability based on protected activity. The case was remanded for a determination of the appropriate award of attorney's fees for Allison. View "Littlefield v. Littlefield" on Justia Law

Silvia Villareal created a revocable living trust in 2005, which she amended twice. The 2018 restatement of the trust, prepared with an attorney, provided that her three children, Leticia Linzer, Arturo Villareal, and Sonia Godoy, would each receive a one-third interest in her home upon her death. In 2019, Silvia amended the trust again, without an attorney, to state that her children could only sell their shares to each other for $100,000, aiming to keep the home within the family. After Silvia's death, Arturo and Sonia petitioned the probate court to declare the 2019 amendment void, arguing it unreasonably restrained their ability to sell their interests.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County ruled in favor of Arturo and Sonia, determining that the 2019 amendment imposed an unreasonable restraint on alienation in violation of Civil Code section 711. The court declared the amendment void and upheld the 2018 restatement as the operative trust document. Leticia, the trustee, objected, arguing that section 711 did not apply to testamentary gifts and that the 2019 amendment did not impose an unreasonable restraint.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the probate court's decision, holding that section 711 applies to testamentary instruments and that the 2019 amendment imposed an unreasonable restraint on alienation. The court found that the amendment's restrictions on selling the property only to siblings for a fixed price were unreasonable and void. The court also rejected Leticia's argument that the 2019 amendment created a new testamentary trust, concluding that Silvia intended to add to the existing trust rather than create a new one. The court affirmed the probate court's order, maintaining the 2018 restatement as the operative trust document. View "Godoy v. Linzner" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a beneficiary of the Carolyn Patricia Young Family Trust, alleged that defendants, the trust protector and trustee, were conspiring to withhold trust funds improperly. The alleged conspiracy aimed to preserve assets for the trustee, who is also a residuary beneficiary. Plaintiff sought an ex parte application to suspend the defendants' powers and appoint an interim trustee. The Superior Court of Orange County granted the application, suspending the defendants' powers, appointing an interim trustee, requiring a bond, setting a review hearing, and prohibiting the interim trustee from using trust assets for compensation without prior court authorization.Defendants appealed the order. Plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the order was not appealable. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the appealability of the order. The court held that orders suspending trustees and appointing interim trustees in probate court are not directly appealable. The court emphasized that such orders are provisional and not final, aligning with the broader policy against piecemeal appeals.The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that neither Probate Code section 1300 nor section 1304 provided a basis for appealability. The court also found that defendants lacked standing to appeal the portions of the order imposing a bond requirement and prohibiting the use of trust assets for compensation without prior court authorization. Additionally, the court denied plaintiff's motion for sanctions, despite concerns about defendants' counsel's conduct, which the court found troubling but not sufficient to warrant sanctions in this instance. View "Young v. Hartford" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over whether the proceeds of an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) should be included in the estate of a deceased individual, Thomas Reich, for the purpose of calculating the share of his surviving spouse, Pamela Reich, as an "omitted spouse" under California law. Thomas had created a revocable trust in 2003, which was amended in 2016, to distribute his assets upon his death. He designated his daughter and granddaughter as beneficiaries of the IRA, which had a balance of approximately $1.5 million at the time of his death. Thomas married Pamela in 2020 but did not update his trust to provide for her before his death in 2021.Pamela initially filed a petition seeking an omitted spouse's share of Thomas's estate, including the IRA proceeds. The Los Angeles County Superior Court overruled a demurrer by the trust's beneficiaries, suggesting that the IRA proceeds might be included in the estate. However, a partial settlement was reached, excluding the IRA proceeds from Pamela's share. Pamela then filed two new petitions regarding her entitlement to the IRA proceeds, which were assigned to a different judge.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the probate court's orders dismissing Pamela's petitions. The court held that the IRA proceeds are nonprobate assets and do not pass through the decedent's testamentary trust to the separate trusts created for the beneficiaries. Therefore, the IRA proceeds are not part of Thomas's "estate" for the purpose of calculating Pamela's omitted spouse's share. The court also noted that the prior demurrer ruling was not controlling in this context. View "Reich v. Reich" on Justia Law

Dr. Laura Dean Head, a college professor, passed away in 2013, leaving behind her sisters, Della Hamlin and Helaine Head. Shortly before her death, Dr. Head executed a trust naming her former student and friend, Zakiya Jendayi, as the trustee and sole beneficiary. In 2020, Hamlin and Head petitioned the probate court to invalidate the trust, alleging undue influence, lack of capacity, and forgery. After a 17-day bench trial, the court found that Jendayi had exerted undue influence over Dr. Head and invalidated the trust.The probate court determined that Hamlin and Head, as intestate heirs disinherited by the trust, had standing to contest the trust. The court applied the common law presumption of undue influence, finding that Jendayi had a confidential relationship with Dr. Head, actively participated in procuring the trust, and would unduly benefit from it. The court also found substantial evidence supporting the presumption of undue influence and rejected Jendayi’s claims of judicial bias. The court concluded that any deficiencies in its statement of decision were harmless and affirmed the judgment.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the probate court’s judgment, holding that Hamlin and Head had standing to contest the trust. The appellate court found substantial evidence supporting the probate court’s application of the presumption of undue influence and its finding of undue influence. The court also concluded that the probate court did not demonstrate judicial bias and that any deficiencies in the statement of decision were harmless. The judgment was affirmed. View "Hamlin v. Jendayi" on Justia Law

Trudy Maxwell, a 93-year-old resident of Atria Park of San Mateo, died after ingesting an industrial strength cleaner mistakenly served to her by an Atria employee. Trudy’s eight surviving children, including James Maxwell III (James III), filed a lawsuit against Atria Management Company and related entities, alleging negligence, wrongful death, and elder abuse. The trial court denied Atria’s motion to compel arbitration, concluding that James III, who signed the arbitration agreement, was not authorized to do so under his durable power of attorney (DPOA) because he was not authorized to make health care decisions for Trudy. Instead, Trudy’s daughter, Marybeth, held the power of attorney for health care.The Atria defendants appealed, arguing that James III had the authority to sign the arbitration agreement and that all of Trudy’s heirs were bound to arbitrate their wrongful death claims. They also contended that California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2(c), which allows an exception to arbitration when third-party claims may be affected, was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reversed the trial court’s order denying arbitration and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court instructed the trial court to reconsider the validity of the arbitration agreement in light of the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Harrod v. Country Oaks Partners, LLC, which held that agreeing to an optional arbitration agreement is not a health care decision. The appellate court also directed the trial court to determine whether the DPOA was valid and whether James III had the authority to agree to arbitration despite Marybeth holding the health care POA. Additionally, the court noted that the wrongful death claims of Trudy’s children were not subject to arbitration as they were not parties to the arbitration agreement. View "Maxwell v. Atria Management Co., LLC" on Justia Law

Jeffrey G. Grossman and his family sued attorney John Peter Wakeman, Jr. and Wakeman Law Group, Inc. for legal malpractice. The plaintiffs claimed that Wakeman negligently prepared estate planning documents for Dr. A. Richard Grossman, which disinherited them in favor of Richard's fourth wife, Elizabeth Grossman. Richard's estate was valued at $18 million, and the plaintiffs argued they were the intended beneficiaries. The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding $9.5 million in damages.The Ventura County Superior Court denied Wakeman's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Wakeman appealed, arguing that he owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs, as they were not his clients. He contended that his duty was solely to Richard, who had instructed him to leave everything to Elizabeth.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to show that Wakeman owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs. The court emphasized that there was no clear, certain, and undisputed evidence of Richard's intent to benefit the plaintiffs. Testimonies from Elizabeth and others supported Wakeman's claim that Richard intended to leave his estate to Elizabeth. The court held that imposing a duty on Wakeman to the plaintiffs would place an intolerable burden on the legal profession.The Court of Appeal reversed the judgments and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to enter judgment in favor of Wakeman and his law group. The appeal from the order denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was dismissed as moot. View "Grossman v. Wakeman" on Justia Law

Carla Montgomery petitioned to receive a share of her deceased father Benjamin C. Williams' trust estate, claiming she was an omitted child under Probate Code section 21622. Carla was born following a brief relationship between her mother, Annie Elliott, and Benjamin in the 1960s. Benjamin, who fathered seven children in total, moved to California shortly after Carla's conception and was unaware of her birth. In 1999, Benjamin executed a trust naming only his two youngest children, Benita Ligia Williams and Benjamin S. Williams, as beneficiaries. Carla learned of Benjamin's death and the trust's existence in 2019 and subsequently petitioned for a share of the estate.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County held a one-day trial where evidence and testimonies were presented. The court found that Benjamin was unaware of Carla's birth when he executed the trust but concluded that Carla failed to prove that her omission was solely due to Benjamin's unawareness of her existence. The court noted that Benjamin had also omitted four other known children from his trust, indicating his intent to provide only for the two named beneficiaries. Consequently, the court denied Carla's petition and entered judgment against her.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case de novo. The court agreed with the trial court's application of the reasoning from Rallo v. O’Brian, which requires an omitted child to prove that the sole reason for their omission was the testator's unawareness of their birth. The appellate court found that Benjamin's omission of his other known children demonstrated his intent to exclude all preexisting children, known or unknown. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, denying Carla's petition and awarding costs on appeal to Benita. View "Estate of Williams" on Justia Law