Horan v. Roan
193 Cal. App. 4th 1526
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Decedent Patricia Redfield died March 17, 2004, survived by three children: Roan, True, and Horan.
- Appellant Horan withdrew $136,000 from decedent’s account shortly before death, later claiming it was an inter vivos gift for a house.
- Respondents filed will contests and section 850 petitions to determine if the $136,000 was part of the estate.
- The probate court approved a settlement in August 2005 that dismissed with prejudice the section 850 petitions and related claims.
- After settlement, respondents later challenged accounting, arguing the $136,000 should be in the estate; the trial court found the money was part of the estate and ordered repayment, but on appeal the judgment was reversed.
- Court held that res judicata barred relitigation of whether the $136,000 was part of the decedent’s estate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could reopen the settlement | Roan and True argue for reconsideration of the $136,000 issue. | Horan asserts final settlement barred relitigation. | Trial court had no jurisdiction to reopen the settlement. |
| Whether res judicata bars relitigating the estate characterization of $136,000 | Respondents contend new accounting allows review of the gift/estate status. | Horan argues the accounting dispute is separate from the settled issues. | Res judicata bars relitigation; final probate order resolved the issue. |
| Whether the August 16, 2005 probate order is a final judgment on the merits | Respondents contend the order could be questioned in later proceedings. | Horan asserts the order resolved the issues and is final. | Yes; the order is a final judgment on the merits, final and appealable. |
| Whether the trial court could consider fees or other relief related to the settlement | Respondents seek fees tied to the dispute over the $136,000. | Horan argues the settlement precludes such reconsideration. | Remains barred; the court lacked authority to revisit the settled issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Torrey Pines Bank v. Superior Court, 216 Cal.App.3d 813 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (dismissal with prejudice constitutes retraxit; final on merits)
- Estate of Cook, 205 Cal. 581 (Cal. 1928) (bar on relitigation after final judgment)
- Alpha Mechanical, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America, 133 Cal.App.4th 1319 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (res judicata applies to final probate settlement)
- Bank of America v. Department of Mental Hygiene, 246 Cal.App.2d 578 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966) (final probate judgment is conclusive against world)
- Estate of Lucas, 23 Cal.2d 454 (Cal. 1943) (attack on judgment; collateral considerations)
- Heiser v. Superior Court, 88 Cal.App.3d 276 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979) (final judgment conclusive against all)
- Estate of Green, 138 Cal.App.2d 211 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955) (appealability of probate orders under §1300)
- Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 28 Cal.4th 888 (Cal. 2002) (definition and scope of res judicata and related doctrines)