Drake v. Pinkham CA3
217 Cal. App. 4th 400
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- The Living Trust, established by Theodore and Josephine Citta, divided assets into a Family Trust and Survivor’s Trust; upon Josephine’s death, assets were to pass to Gina and Janice.
- In 2001 and 2004, amendments to the Survivor’s Trust altered beneficiary and trustee appointments, removing Gina and naming Janice as sole successor trustee.
- Gina petitioned in 2005 to contest trustee actions, alleging Josephine’s incapacity and defendants’ undue influence; settlement followed in 2006, with Josephine representing no encumbrances on Family Trust real property without notice to Gina.
- Josephine died in 2009; in 2009-2010 Janice served Gina with trustee notifications and Gina filed a petition seeking to invalidate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, among other relief.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, holding issues barred by collateral estoppel and statutes of limitations, and did not reach laches; the court treated Gina’s objections as opposition evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge amendments pre-death | Gina lacked standing only after death; rights exist while revocable power remains. | Beneficiaries lack standing while trust revocable and power to revoke with competent settlor. | Gina has standing to pursue claims if settlor/incompetence grounds apply. |
| Laches as a defense to all causes of action | Delay not unreasonable under standing and merits; timely under discovery rules. | Gina knew or should have known by 2006 and delayed filing until 2010, prejudicing defendants. | Laches supports affirmance on alternative ground; delay prejudicial and unreasonable. |
| Effect of collateral estoppel and statutes of limitations | Affirmative defenses do not bar all claims; some issues may survive. | Most claims barred by collateral estoppel or statutes of limitations. | Court need not decide these; affirmed on laches alternative. |
| Scope of standing and 15800/17200 interaction | Revocable-trust framework does not bar beneficiary challenges upon incompetence. | 15800 restricts beneficiaries when settlor competent; standing limited. | Standing not precluded by 15800/17200 where incompetence asserted; analysis supports beneficiary rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- California School of Culinary Arts v. Lujan, 112 Cal.App.4th 16 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (summary judgment may be affirmed on any correct theory if adequately addressed in trial court)
- Magic Kitchen LLC v. Good Things Internat., Ltd., 153 Cal.App.4th 1144 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (delay measured from when plaintiff knew or should have known of claims)
- Bono v. Clark, 103 Cal.App.4th 1409 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (death of an important witness may constitute prejudice)
- Johnson v. City of Loma Linda, 24 Cal.4th 61 (Cal. 2000) (definition and elements of laches)
- Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Doe, 138 Cal.App.4th 872 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (standing concerns may be raised at any stage; jurisdictional nature)
- Lonely Maiden Productions, LLC v. GoldenTree Asset Management, LP, 201 Cal.App.4th 368 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (guidance on Restatement Third of Trusts and settlor capacity relevance)
- Estate of Giraldin, 55 Cal.4th 1058 (Cal. 2012) (trusts revocable status and beneficiary rights implications)