Conservatorship and Estate of Manuel CA2/7, B297334

Background

Susan Manuel, elderly, transferred multiple properties and IRA benefits to daughter Yana over several years; son Gregory successfully obtained conservatorship of Susan’s person and estate.
Conservator Jeffrey Siegel filed a Probate Code §850 petition to recover several real properties, two condominiums, and $720,000 allegedly taken from Susan’s IRA, plus damages and fees.
After three days of trial, on August 6, 2018 the parties (Susan through counsel, Siegel, Yana, and Gregory) announced an oral settlement on the record: Siegel would obtain title to one condominium and the Orange County property, Yana would retain other property, Gregory would receive $190,000 in fees from the estate, and Yana and Gregory would be equal trust beneficiaries on Susan’s death.
A written stipulation and order reflecting the portion of the settlement between Siegel and Yana was signed and entered that day (Gregory did not sign that written stipulation).
Months later Gregory moved under CCP §664.6 to enforce the oral settlement; Yana moved to vacate the written stipulation and order, alleging extrinsic fraud and duress by her trial counsel.
The probate court enforced the oral settlement and denied Yana’s motion to set aside; Yana appealed both rulings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appealability of order enforcing the settlement	Gregory: order is appealable under Probate Code §§1300(d),(e) because it authorizes estate payments and is a final order modifying the trust under §17200	Yana: did not meaningfully dispute appealability	Appealable: court agrees it authorizes payments to counsel and is a final order under the Probate Code, so appealable.
Appealability of order denying motion to vacate the stipulation	Yana: denial is appealable because vacatur was the only way to present extrinsic-fraud/duress claims	Siegel/Gregory: generally not appealable — Probate Code specifies appealable probate orders and does not permit appeals from postjudgment vacatur denials	Appealable under Baker exception: because Yana could not meaningfully have appealed the underlying stipulation on the grounds asserted, the court allows appeal from the denial of vacatur.
Whether stipulation should be set aside for extrinsic fraud	Yana: her attorneys coerced/‘sold out’ her, she agreed under duress and could not present defenses at the time of stipulation	Siegel/Gregory: evidence insufficient; counsel acted reasonably; Yana’s testimony not credible; settlement not one-sided	Denied: probate court did not abuse discretion; credibility findings and substantial evidence support refusal to set aside for extrinsic fraud or duress.
Whether the oral settlement should be enforced	Gregory: valid, binding oral agreement on the record enforceable under CCP §664.6	Yana: settlement procured by duress/extrinsic fraud so unenforceable	Enforced: court found a valid oral settlement and rejected Yana’s fraud/duress claims; judgment enforcing settlement affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

Estate of Baker, 170 Cal. 578 (Cal. 1915) (permits appeal from denial of motion to vacate when appellant lacked opportunity to appeal underlying judgment).
Estate of Allen, 175 Cal. 356 (Cal. 1917) (order denying relief under Code Civ. Proc. §473 in probate is not appealable).
Estate of O'Dea, 15 Cal.2d 637 (Cal. 1940) (limits Baker; probate appeals are limited to orders specified by Probate Code).
Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries, 6 Cal.4th 644 (Cal. 1993) (postjudgment appeals under CCP §904.1 limited to orders affecting enforcement of judgment).
Dana Point Safe Harbor Collective v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2010) (the right to appeal is purely statutory).
Warga v. Cooper, 44 Cal.App.4th 371 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (relief from judgment available for extrinsic fraud).
Leeper v. Beltrami, 53 Cal.2d 195 (Cal. 1959) (duress can render settlements/judgments voidable).
Estate of Stoddart, 115 Cal.App.4th 1118 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (probate appeal provisions are exclusive).