Sutherland v. Arent CA1/1
A160404
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 24, 2022Background:
- Samuel and Lorna Arent placed three Lake County parcels into a family trust (1995 Trust); Candyce Sutherland is successor trustee and a beneficiary along with siblings Rebecca Draper, Brien Arent, and Dan Arnet.
- After Samuel’s 2017 death, appellants Brien Arent and Eva Keiser produced a purported five‑year "Operating Business and Farm Lease" (signed twice purportedly by Samuel) and an unsigned "Addendum"; appellants occupied Trust property and asserted rights under the Lease.
- In a 2018 unlawful detainer (UD) proceeding, appellants introduced the Lease; the UD trial court orally ruled for defendants (minute order), but no final judgment appears in the record and Sutherland did not have the Lease before that trial.
- Sutherland later filed a probate petition seeking cancellation of the Lease as void/forged and other relief; at a 2019 trial a forensic handwriting expert testified the Lease signature was a forgery and the trial court found the Lease fraudulent.
- The trial court rejected appellants’ collateral‑estoppel defense, declared the Lease invalid, awarded possession to Sutherland, and charged Brien’s share of the Trust with litigation fees incurred after appellants relied on the Lease.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sutherland) | Defendant's Argument (Brien/Keiser) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel bars Sutherland from attacking the Lease’s validity | Sutherland: prior UD did not produce a final, fully litigated determination on the Lease; she lacked full and fair opportunity and new evidence (forensic expert) showed forgery | Appellants: UD court found the Lease valid; that ruling precludes relitigation of Lease validity | Court: Collateral estoppel not established; UD ruling not shown to be final and application would be unjust (forgery allegation and fairness concerns) |
| Whether the UD minute order constituted a final judgment precluding relitigation | Sutherland: no formal judgment was entered; UD was "in play" and she could litigate in a new action | Appellants: rely on minute order and trial transcript showing court ruled for defendants | Court: Appellants failed to prove a final, appealable determination; record does not show a final judgment on the merits |
| Whether charging Brien’s trust share with trustee’s litigation fees was proper | Sutherland: fees were reasonably incurred defending the Trust from fraudulent Lease and repeated motions by appellants; beneficiaries should not bear costs caused by appellants’ misconduct | Appellants: surcharge improper/general challenges to trustee duties and fee reasonableness | Court: Surcharge upheld; factual findings supported that appellants’ conduct (fraudulent lease and motions) caused the fees and charging Brien’s share was not unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucido v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 335 (1990) (elements and policy framework for collateral estoppel)
- Ayala v. Dawson, 13 Cal.App.5th 1319 (2017) (when UD findings can preclude later claims; focuses on scope and fairness of prior proceedings)
- Smith v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp., 153 Cal.App.4th 1407 (2007) (preclusion may be unfair where crucial evidence or witnesses were absent at first trial)
- People v. Barnes, 240 Cal.App.2d 428 (1966) (public policy forbids allowing false testimony to immunize wrongdoing; collateral estoppel should not reward perjury)
- Murphy v. Murphy, 164 Cal.App.4th 376 (2008) (collateral estoppel on substituted‑judgment/probate orders where issues were actually litigated)
- Donahue v. Donahue, 182 Cal.App.4th 259 (2010) (trust attorney fees must be reasonable and for benefit of the trust)