Bridgeman v. Allen
219 Cal. App. 4th 288
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Henry and Kathleen Bridgeman created a revocable trust; after Kathleen died Henry was sole settlor and trustee and later amended the trust to name caregiver Donna Allen sole beneficiary and successor trustee (2005).
- Edward (their son) challenged the 2005 amendment in 2009, alleging incapacity/undue influence; the probate court sustained a demurrer and dismissed without prejudice, saying Edward could refile once the trust became irrevocable.
- Henry later was removed as trustee; Beverly Brito became successor trustee; Henry died in July 2011 and Brito mailed the Probate Code §16061.7 notice to heirs/beneficiaries on July 11, 2011 (stating a 120‑day contest period under §16061.8).
- Edward tendered a renewed petition in mid‑November 2011; filing was rejected first for form, then accepted on November 21, 2011 — 133 days after the mailed notice (beyond the 120‑day limit).
- Edward argued CCP §1013 (mailing completes service on deposit, with a 10‑day extension for out‑of‑state parties) extended his filing time and alternatively that the new petition related back to his 2009 petition; the probate court denied nunc pro tunc relief and sustained the demurrer as untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bridgeman) | Defendant's Argument (Brito) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCP §1013 extends §16061.8’s 120‑day contest period | §1013 gives a 10‑day mailing extension (Bridgeman lives out‑of‑state), so filing was timely | Probate/Probate Code controls; §1215(e) makes mailing "complete" on deposit and displaces §1013 | CCP §1013 does not apply; Probate Code §1215(e) controls and no 10‑day extension applies |
| Whether the petition related back to the 2009 petition dismissed without prejudice | New petition seeks relief on same facts so should relate back to original filing date | The earlier action was finally adjudicated and not pending; allowing relation back would defeat §16061.8’s clear deadline | Relation‑back doctrine does not apply; dismissal was final for purposes here, so new petition is untimely |
| Standing to appeal / to demur | Edward claims he had standing as the settlor’s child/interested person and only sought relief against prior trustee | Brito contends Edward is not a beneficiary under later amendments and thus not aggrieved | Edward has standing as an interested person (child); Brito as successor trustee had standing to demur |
Key Cases Cited
- Cole v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 177 Cal.App.3d 1 (1986) (CCP §1013 does not override a statute stating mailing completes service when deposited in mail)
- Citicorp North America, Inc. v. Superior Court, 213 Cal.App.3d 563 (1989) (general rules like CCP §1013 give way where another statute provides a specific timing rule)
- Topa Ins. Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos., 39 Cal.App.4th 1331 (1995) (dismissal without prejudice can be a final adjudication under certain facts and is not a pending action for relation‑back)
- Drvol v. Bant, 183 Cal.App.2d 351 (1960) (earlier case applying CCP timing rules prior to enactment of §1215; distinguished here)
- Kim v. Regents of University of California, 80 Cal.App.4th 160 (2000) (elements required for relation‑back doctrine)
- Estate of Goulet, 10 Cal.4th 1074 (1995) (successor trustee has duty to defend trust administration and protect distribution to beneficiaries)