Katzenstein v. Chabad of Poway
237 Cal. App. 4th 759
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Trustee Bonnie Katzenstein, as trustee of the Feinberg Family Trust, seeks a declaration that Genworth policy proceeds belong to the Trust and damages for interference after Decedent Robert Feinberg’s death in 2012.
- Chabad of Poway opposed via an Objection and Counterclaim asserting an irrevocable pledge/transfer of policy benefits and asserting unjust enrichment and breach of contract claims.
- Genworth policy named the Trust as beneficiary; a Sun Life policy is also involved; Trustee alleges documents gifting benefits were signed under fraud/undue influence.
- After discovery, Trustee moved for summary judgment; the court issued a five-page tentative ruling and a signed Order in part: deny Trustee’s summary-judgment motion, grant summary adjudication on beneficiary status, and sua sponte strike Chabad’s Objection and Counterclaim.
- Chabad appealed the unsigned minute Order, but the court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding unsigned minute orders are not appealable and section 581d requires a signed written dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the unsigned minute order is an appealable order. | Chabad argues the Order is appealable as final or as a probate-order payment directive. | Chabad contends Probate Code 1300(d) provides appellate basis for orders directing payment. | Unsigned minute order is not appealable; jurisdiction lacking; appeal must be dismissed. |
| Whether Probate Code section 1300, subdivision (d) provides jurisdiction for review of the Order. | Assumes 1300(d) grants jurisdiction for directing payment of a claim. | Argues the Order, even if it directs payment, is not appealable due to 581d. | Even assuming 1300(d) jurisdiction, the unsigned minute Order remains nonappealable. |
| Whether the strike of the Objection and Counterclaim is a reviewable ruling. | The strike improperly eliminates Chabad’s affirmative claims. | Strike did not adjudicate any claim; the merit adjudication occurred only on summary adjudication. | The strike is not, by itself, an appealable ruling; no final adjudication of Chabad’s claims occurred. |
| Whether the appeal should be treated as a writ or nunc pro tunc entry to salvage jurisdiction. | Chabad urges writ treatment or nunc pro tunc entry to confer jurisdiction. | Courts should not convert nonappealable orders into appealable judgments absent extraordinary circumstances. | Discretion not warranted; not treated as writ; no jurisdiction to review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griset v. Fair Political Practices Comm., 5 Cal.4th 865 (2001) (appealability is a statutory prerequisite for direct appeals)
- Jennings v. Marralle, 8 Cal.4th 121 (1994) (appealability requires an appealable order or judgment)
- ECC Construction, Inc. v. Oak Park Calabasas Homeowners Assn., 122 Cal.App.4th 994 (2004) (civil rules apply to probate proceedings unless otherwise provided)