Chui v. Chui
B306918M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 28, 2022Background
- King and May Chui created a family trust holding apartment interests and other real property; after deaths and amendments, beneficiaries included Robert, his children (Benjamin, Jacqueline, Michael), and others.
- Long-running trust/probate litigation accused Christine of misappropriating trust assets and elder abuse; multiple related probate cases were consolidated or treated as related.
- On May 14, 2018 the parties announced an oral settlement on the record under Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6; terms affecting the minors were made subject to guardian ad litem (GAL) approval. GAL Jackson Chen was not present when some additional terms were later recited.
- Chen later executed a first GAL agreement (July 2018) and then a second GAL agreement (January 2020) approving terms for the minors; Christine did not sign either and repudiated the agreements; the trial court denied approval of the first GAL agreement but approved the second and appointed Chen as GAL in related probate matters.
- Christine and the minors appealed multiple trial-court orders (enforcement of the oral settlement, approval of the second GAL agreement, appointment/removal issues); the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court on all challenged rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the oral settlement placed on the record on May 14, 2018 was enforceable under CCP § 664.6 | Christine: settlement invalid because additional material terms were added after she left; she lacked informed consent and was impaired; needed evidentiary hearing | Co-trustees/Chen: May 14 statements constituted a binding settlement subject to GAL approval; contemporaneous record and declarations support enforcement | Court enforced the oral settlement under § 664.6; Christine waived any right to an evidentiary hearing and her challenges were forfeited or meritless |
| Whether Chen’s July 2018 first GAL agreement rejected the settlement or otherwise altered it | Christine: Chen’s July 23 report rejected the offer; first GAL added new material terms | Chen/co-trustees: first GAL expressly agreed to the settlement terms subject to limited clarifications; it did not change Christine’s obligations | Court found the settlement remained subject to Chen’s approval; first GAL did not nullify or alter the May 14 settlement as to Christine |
| Whether the court could approve the second GAL agreement and appoint Chen while appeals in related matters were pending | Christine: pending appeals (ILIT and anti-SLAPP matters) divested trial court of jurisdiction; petition should be heard in this court | Respondents: section 1310 and general stay principles do not automatically bar trial-court proceedings that do not interfere with appellate review; settlement dismissal of appeals is permissible | Court held pending appeals did not automatically stay these probate proceedings; approval could proceed in trial court and dismissal of appeals by settlement is acceptable |
| Whether the second GAL agreement was in the minors’ best interests and whether notice/participation defects or lack of GAL appointments in related cases invalidated it | Christine/minors: lack of appointment in every related case, absence of minors at hearing, repudiations show agreement is not in minors’ best interests | Respondents: court may appoint GALs discretionarily; Chen negotiated better economic and practical results for minors; repudiations were ineffective without GAL involvement | Abuse of discretion not shown; trial court found second GAL provided net economic and practical benefit, approved it, and rejected repudiations as ineffective or adverse to minors’ interests |
| Whether Christine or the minors could disaffirm/repudiate the GAL agreements after execution | Christine/minors: parent and minors filed repudiations; minors can disaffirm contracts while underage | Respondents: Code Civ. Proc. § 372 empowers court-approved guardian ad litem compromises; Family Code disaffirmance rule is subject to statute | Court ruled that a guardian ad litem’s compromise (subject to court approval) is governed by § 372; minors cannot unilaterally void a GAL-compromise that the court properly approves; repudiations were ineffective or prejudicially insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (Cal. 2005) (appeal does not automatically stay trial-court proceedings unless they would alter or interfere with appealed orders)
- Neary v. Regents of University of California, 3 Cal.4th 273 (Cal. 1992) (settlement and dismissal of appeals favored to conserve judicial resources)
- Anderson v. Latimer, 166 Cal.App.3d 667 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (where appeal is pending, forum for approval of a minor’s compromise may be controlled by statute)
- Leeman v. Adams Extract & Spice, LLC, 236 Cal.App.4th 1367 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (trial court may interpret and enforce material terms of an oral settlement under § 664.6 but cannot invent material terms)
- Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick, 60 Cal.App.4th 793 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (court may enforce parties’ agreed settlement terms but should not create material terms)
- Scruton v. Korean Air Lines Co., 39 Cal.App.4th 1596 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (guardian ad litem’s repudiation merits deference but court may enforce a repudiated compromise if repudiation is adverse to minors’ best interests)
- Pearson v. Superior Court, 202 Cal.App.4th 1333 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (procedural discussion of approval of minor’s compromise and parties’ rights to object)
- Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC, 61 Cal.4th 899 (Cal. 2015) (unconscionability requires both procedural and substantive elements)
- Darling, Hall & Rae v. Kritt, 75 Cal.App.4th 1148 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (trial court may change interim rulings as part of its inherent authority)