Gaynor v. Bulen
19 Cal. App. 5th 864
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Grandfather created a long‑term trust funding distributions to three family branches; trustee succession originally required a qualified corporate trustee.
- Over decades, successor cotrustees (senior‑generation family members) distributed income primarily to the senior generation and proposed a new succession plan to preserve that control. James (appellant) allegedly advised and assisted them and acted as a de facto trustee.
- The cotrustees filed probate petitions (to modify the trust, appoint a trustee, and construe terms) seeking rules that would let current trustees control successor selection and limit voting to income‑receiving seniors. The probate court rejected those changes and later awarded the opposing beneficiaries attorney fees as a common fund benefit.
- The Gaynor beneficiaries then filed a surcharge (breach of fiduciary duty) petition against the cotrustees and later added James, alleging ~25 acts of disloyalty and self‑dealing, including improper transfers to an LLC and wasting trust assets to fund the probate litigation.
- James moved to strike portions of the petition under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute (§ 425.16), arguing the challenged allegations arose from protected petitioning (the probate litigation) and were therefore subject to dismissal; the probate court denied the motion and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gaynor) | Defendant's Argument (Bulen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the anti‑SLAPP statute applies to claims against James | Claims are based on James’s breaches of loyalty and misuse of trust assets independent of litigation; litigation is evidence, not the basis | The allegations arise from James’s participation in probate litigation (protected petitioning), so anti‑SLAPP applies | Anti‑SLAPP does not apply: the gravamen is breach of fiduciary duty (taking/wasting trust assets), not the act of petitioning |
| Whether allegations that trust funds were used to prosecute/defend prior probate petitions convert the claim into one "arising from" protected activity | Using funds to carry out a self‑serving plan is the wrongful act; even if litigation was funded, the injury is the depletion/misuse of trust assets | Funding litigation is protected and the claim arises from that protected act, triggering anti‑SLAPP | Filing/defending probate petitions may be protected, but here they merely provide evidence; the injury‑producing act was the withdrawal/misuse of trust assets and breach of loyalty |
| Whether claimed damages tied to prior litigation expenses (specific fee items) make the claim arise from protected activity | Recovery of specific fees is incidental to overall fiduciary breach and does not change the gravamen | The claimed litigation‑related damages show the claim arises from protected petitioning | Damages flowing from the alleged taking do not transform the claim; incidental litigation fees do not trigger anti‑SLAPP |
| Whether precedent requiring parsing of "claims" (Baral/Park) alters analysis here | The petition pleads a single fiduciary‑duty claim whose elements arise from breaches, not protected communications | The petition includes discrete allegations of protected acts that should be parsed and struck under Baral | Court applies Park/Baral: assess what defendant activity supplies claim elements; here elements derive from breach/taking, not petitioning |
Key Cases Cited
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (clarifies "arising from" analysis; focus on defendant activity that supplies claim elements)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (claims may be parsed; anti‑SLAPP targets allegations of protected activity asserted as grounds for relief)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (anti‑SLAPP requires defendant show plaintiff’s cause arises from protected act)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (defendant’s act underlying liability must be protected act to trigger anti‑SLAPP)
- Greco v. Greco, 2 Cal.App.5th 810 (breach/surcharge claims target the taking/use of trust funds; anti‑SLAPP inapplicable when wrongful act is the taking, not the prior litigation)
- Sheley v. Harrop, 9 Cal.App.5th 1147 (contrasting authority holding anti‑SLAPP applied where litigation‑related allegations formed the claim; court here finds it unpersuasive for this case)
- Castleman v. Sagaser, 216 Cal.App.4th 481 (attorney/client malpractice and fiduciary‑duty claims often fall outside anti‑SLAPP when based on breach of loyalty despite evidentiary ties to litigation)