Albrecht v. Albrecht CA2/4
B306601
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 8, 2021Background
- Ruth Albrecht created a 2004 family trust, amended in 2009 and again in 2016; the 2016 amendments nominated Joyce Pearson as successor trustee, then were revoked and reinstated in rapid succession before Ruth’s March 2017 death.
- After Ruth’s death, competing Probate Code §17200 petitions were filed: Robert sought a declaration he was trustee (alleging Pearson procured 2016 instruments by undue influence); Pearson sought recognition as successor trustee.
- In December 2017 Robert and Pearson executed a written Settlement Agreement (stipulated to the court) naming Robert sole trustee and providing $55,000 attorneys’ fees to each, drawn from sale proceeds of Ruth’s condominium; the court signed a related Stipulation and Order but the written Settlement Agreement itself was later partially vacated for lack of notice to Jeffrey.
- Robert caused the condominium sale (May 2017 sale proceeds ~$95,742); he paid himself $55,000 in fees and other disbursements; disputes followed about notice, accounting, and fee disbursements.
- Multiple hearings and petitions followed; at the February 19, 2020 evidentiary hearing the court (1) awarded appellants costs but no attorneys’ fees for their demurrer, (2) found Jeffrey entitled to an accounting (distribution claim premature), (3) denied Robert’s accounting without prejudice, appointed a Probate Referee to value the condo, removed Robert as trustee, appointed Jeffrey interim trustee, and ordered return of the $55,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellants were denied due process by being precluded from presenting evidence at the Feb 2020 hearing | Court prevented them from presenting all evidence and thus reversible per se error | Court reasonably limited evidence to relevant matters and allowed presentation on all material issues | No reversible error; court exercised proper control and allowed relevant evidence; no per se denial of trial rights |
| Removal of Robert as trustee | Removal was improper: lack of notice removal would be considered; no abuse of discretion; payment of $55k had been court-approved earlier | Robert had conflicts (represented himself and sons adverse to Jeffrey), withheld material information about trust assets and failed to comply with court order to return/seek instruction about fees | Affirmed: removal within trial court’s discretion based on breaches (failure to disclose, conflict of interest, noncompliance with court order) |
| Enforceability of trust no-contest clause against Jeffrey for joining Pearson’s removal petition | Jeffrey violated no-contest clause by joining a pleading seeking to invalidate trustee appointment and thus lost beneficiary status | Jeffrey’s joinder challenged trustee conduct (breach), not an attack on validity of the instrument/its terms as a direct contest | No enforcement; the joinder was not a “direct contest” under §21310(b), so no-contest clause did not bar Jeffrey’s claims |
| Sufficiency of Robert’s accounting and requirement of appraisal | Accounting complied by showing sale and proceeds; no statutory requirement to appraise pre-sale value | Accounting omitted the value of the condominium at the start of the accounting period; appraisal may be necessary to determine proper trustee conduct | Accounting properly denied without prejudice for noncompliance with §1061(a); appointing a Probate Referee to appraise condo was within court’s discretion |
| Attorneys’ fees and costs for demurrer to Pearson’s removal petition | Appellants entitled to attorneys’ fees under §15642(d), Settlement Agreement and equity | Court found Robert contributed to the dispute (failed to honor settlement/return or petition for fees) and awarded costs but declined fees | Affirmed: court awarded costs ($893.96) but denied attorneys’ fees, exercising its discretion under §15642(d) |
Key Cases Cited
- Elkins v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 1337 (right to offer relevant evidence at trial)
- Gordon v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 170 Cal.App.4th 1103 (distinguishes denial of some evidence from denial of all evidence — reversible per se rule)
- Viejo Bancorp, Inc. v. Wood, 217 Cal.App.3d 200 (substance and effect, not label, controls appealability)
- Van Beurden Ins. Servs. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, 15 Cal.4th 51 (timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
- Trolan v. Trolan, 31 Cal.App.5th 939 (abuse-of-discretion standard for trustee removal)
- Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953 (trial court’s authority to control proceedings)