San Francisco Opera Ass'n v. Flickinger
201 Cal. App. 4th 971
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- In 1996 Chandler Flickinger became executor of the Kampen and Ellington estates, with the San Francisco Opera Association as contingent beneficiary; two bonds were issued by the bonding company.
- The 1996 wills left the entire estates to the Opera Association if the other testator did not survive 90 days; Flickinger was named executor for both estates.
- In 1999 the Ellington estate received a final distribution order, but Flickinger delayed distributions for years; in 2009 the Opera Association petitioned for surcharge and accounting.
- The probate court found Flickinger breached fiduciary duties, surcharged him for bond premiums and certain compensation, but rejected claims for damages not based on laches or statute.
- The court later amended the Ellington distribution to reflect misallocation of IRA accounts between estates and ordered Flickinger to repay surcharged sums.
- The Opera Association appeals, challenging interest on undistributed assets, alternative damages, laches, and the court’s authority to amend the 1999 order; the appellate court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interest on undistributed assets is warranted | Flickinger delay caused loss of value; seeks statutory interest | Final distribution order is not a money judgment; interest not due | Not interest on full value; only bond premiums may bear interest under 9601(a)(1) and laches bars other damages. |
| Whether the court correctly applied laches | Opera Association timely sought relief; delay prejudicial | Opera Association waited more than a decade despite knowledge of the debt | Laches barred claims for interest not grounded in statutory damages; substantial delay supported laches. |
| Whether the 1999 Ellington distribution order was a money judgment under 680.270 | Order required money distribution; should bear 10% interest | Order was a probate distribution, not a money judgment | 680.270 does not apply; final distribution in rem, not a monetary judgment. |
| Whether Probate Code 9601/9602 authorized damages | Surcharge should include full loss with interest | No profits or depreciation beyond bond premiums; no full-value interest | Damages upheld for bond premiums; no interest on total value; no extra measures allowed. |
| Whether the court could amend the 1999 order to reflect IRA misallocation | Amendment necessary to reflect true estates | 1999 order lacks jurisdiction over IRA accounts; amendment proper to correct misallocation | Amendment proper; 1999 order was in rem and did not include IRA accounts; deduct from Ellington accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Hilliard, 83 Cal. 423 (Cal. 1890) (unreasonable delay by executors; misapplication of funds; interest when delaying)
- Estate of McSweeney, 123 Cal.App.2d 787 (Cal. App. 1954) (trust funds not to be used for personal needs; interest if funds used)
- St. Mary’s Hospital v. Perry, 152 Cal. 338 (Cal. 1907) (allowance of interest against executor who delayed delivery of bequest)
- Estate of Piercy, 168 Cal. 755 (Cal. 1914) (compound interest when misconduct is clear and delayed settlement)
- Estate of Dow, 48 Cal.2d 649 (Cal. 1957) (final decree conclusive; in rem jurisdiction; relevance to distribution orders)
- Estate of Guglielmi, 138 Cal.App.2d 80 (Cal. App. 2d 1955) (extraordinary fees; interest on funds withdrawn without order)
- In re Hilliard, 83 Cal. 423 (Cal. 1890) (executor delay and use of estate funds; interest ruled appropriate)
- In re Marriage of Farner, 216 Cal.App.3d 1370 (Cal. App. 1989) (family law; distinction on money judgment interpretation)
- In re Marriage of Wilcox, 124 Cal.App.4th 492 (Cal. App. 2004) (money judgment interpretation in family law context)