Beach v. Beach (In re Beach)

1

Estate of DONALD M. BEACH, Deceased.

MARIE BEACH et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. BRUCE BEACH et al., Defendants and Appellants;

MICHAEL K. LANNING, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

B319019

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division

September 16, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BP143125, Susan J. Matcham, Clifford Klein and C. Edward Simpson, Judges (Ret.). Mark S. Priver, Commissioner and Ruben Garcia, Judge. Reversed with directions.

Sullivan Law Corporation and Shaunna Sullivan for Petitioners and Appellants.

Lurie Zepeda, Schmalz, Hogan & Martin and Steven L. Hogan; Law Offices of David C. Hinshaw and David C. Hinshaw for Defendants and Appellants.

Davis Law Office and D. Jason Davis for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

MOOR Acting P. J.

Petitioner and appellant Elizabeth Havert (also known as Elizabeth Ann Beach),^[1] and interested parties Ann Marie Beach Tabb and Marie Beach, as cotrustees of Robert Beach's testamentary trust (the cotrustees), appeal from a judgment dismissing Havert's petition under Probate Code section 11700 for a determination of the proper distribution of the estate of her father Donald Beach.^[2]

Havert and the cotrustees contend: (1) Havert's claims for elder abuse, fraud, and damages were not barred by the relevant statutes of limitation; (2) the probate court abused its discretion by denying Havert's requests for a second continuance of summary judgment proceedings and further discovery; (3) the probate court erred in granting summary judgment because finding that Donald signed a trust instrument on November 15, 2010, did not resolve all of the issues presented by the petition (4) the standard for mental capacity set forth in sections 810 to 812 is applicable to determine Donald's capacity to execute the trust instrument on November 15, 2010, rather than the lower standard provided in section 6100.5 to execute a will; (5) the probate court was required to issue an order determining the persons entitled to distribution of Donald's estate and their respective shares; and (6) respondents Bruce Breach (individually, as executor of Donald's estate, and as trustee of Donald's trust) and Beverly MacDonald (collectively respondents) do not have standing to respond or file a cross-appeal challenging the judgment because they did not file an answer to the operative petition, a statement of interest in the estate, or a petition for the personal representative to participate in the proceedings.

We conclude the probate court properly found Havert's claims for elder abuse, fraud, and notice violations are barred by the relevant statutes of limitations. Havert also failed to show the probate court abused its discretion by denying her second request for a continuance and requests for further discovery; the discovery being sought was not necessary to oppose the motion for summary judgment or relevant to Havert's claim to an intestate share.

With respect to the motion for summary judgment, no triable issue of fact was shown as to the existence or authenticity of the trust instrument dated November 15, 2010. The applicable standard to assess Donald's mental capacity to execute the trust document on November 15, 2010, was the standard for testamentary capacity set forth in section 6100.5, because the trust instrument at issue was not complex. Donald's capacity under section 6100.5 to execute testamentary instruments on November 15, 2010, free of undue influence was established through the admission of his will to probate. As a result, there was no triable issue of fact concerning the validity of the trust instrument that Donald executed on November 15, 2010. The probate court properly granted summary judgment, but we reverse the order dismissing Havert's petition with directions to enter a new order setting forth the persons entitled to distribution of Donald's estate and their respective shares. As a result, we need not address the respondents' cross-appeal challenging the form of the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND^[3]

I. Estate Plan

Donald had four siblings: Beverly, Bruce, Robert, and Douglas Beach. Donald had only one child, Havert.

In May 2010, Donald executed a holographic will distributing property to Beverly, Bruce, Robert, their children, and Donald's caregiver (the holographic will). Havert was not to receive property under the holographic will.

The caregiver was terminated. On November 15, 2010, Donald executed a typewritten will prepared by attorney Michael Lanning (the November 2010 will) that revoked all former wills.

The November 2010 will expressly disinherited Havert, instructing that she should receive no distribution from the will or otherwise from Donald's estate.

The November 2010 will gave Donald's personal property to Bruce and Beverly. The will gave the remainder of the estate to the trustee of the "Donald M. Beach Declaration of Trust Dated November 15, 2010". The will stated Donald intended to identify the trust in existence, not create a separate trust through the will. If the gift to the trust was not operative, not valid, or could not become effective for any reason, or if the trust referred to in the will failed or had been revoked, then Donald gave the remainder of his estate to the trustee named in that trust under the same conditions stated in the trust provisions and "said Trust provisions are hereby referred to and incorporated herein for the purpose of creating a testamentary trust on the terms set forth herein." Donald appointed Bruce as executor of the will.

Donald executed a complete restatement of his trust ten months later, on September 7, 2011, prepared by attorney Lanning. Bruce was listed as the successor trustee. At Donald's death, the trust for Donald would terminate and his assets would be distributed as follows. Douglas and Robert would receive $1 million each, subject to taxes, if they were living at the time of Donald's death. To Beverly, the restatement provided certain real property, subject to an agreement allowing Bruce to purchase the property, which the trustee was directed to carry out.

To Bruce, the restatement provided stock and interest in a specific corporation, plus a portion of the balance of the trust assets, to be held in trust. The printed document gave 60 percent of the balance of the trust assets to Bruce, but the number was crossed out by hand and 50 percent written in with the initials "DB." To Beverly, the restatement provided the remaining percentage of the trust assets, to be held in trust. Her percentage was originally printed as 40 percent, but the number was crossed out and 50 percent written in with the initials "DB." Should Bruce or Beverly not be living, his or her trust share would pass to his or her issue by right of representation. If Bruce or Beverly died leaving no issue, his or her share would pass to the trust share for the other surviving beneficiary between them.

Except as otherwise provided, upon the death of any beneficiary for whom a trust was being administered under the restatement, the trust share held for the benefit of that beneficiary would pass as if the beneficiary had not been surviving at the termination of the restatement and distributed or held in trust subject to the provisions of the restatement. After age 29, however, a beneficiary was entitled to withdraw the entire balance of his or her trust share. The restatement expressly stated, "It is Trustor's intent that [Havert] receive no distribution from this Trust or otherwise from Trustor's estate."

Donald died eight months after executing the restatement, in May 2012. Havert learned of his death within a few days. In June 2012, Bruce, as successor trustee, filed a petition to probate the November 2010 will, which he attached to the petition.

In August 2012, Bruce sought to transfer all of the estate assets held outside of the restated trust to the restated trust, dismiss the petition for probate, and discharge petitioner as special administrator. He attached a full copy of the restated trust. He also attached "Exhibit A to the Donald M. Beach Declaration of Trust Dated November 15, 2010" listing several assets and a signature dated November 15, 2010. The probate court granted the petition.

Donald's brother Robert died six months after him in November 2012. Robert's wife Marie was appointed as the personal representative of Robert's estate and became trustee of a testamentary trust created under Robert's will (Robert's trust). Following Marie's death, the remainder of Robert's trust would be distributed to his children, including Tabb and her sister Elizabeth Humiston.

II. Litigation and Will Contest

In May 2013, Tabb filed a complaint against Bruce, Beverly, and Beverly's son alleging causes of action for elder financial abuse, fraud and deceit, constructive fraud, and negligence (Tabb's elder abuse action). The result of the litigation is not part of the record in this matter.

In July 2013, attorney Shaunna Sullivan, on behalf of Tabb, filed a petition to admit Donald's holographic will to probate (the will contest). Bruce re-filed his petition to probate Donald's November 2010 will. Tabb objected to Bruce's petition on the ground that the November 2010 will was the product of undue influence and Donald lacked capacity to execute it. Tabb's sister Humiston intervened and joined in Tabb's objections.

Tabb subpoenaed several of Donald's estate planning documents from attorney Lanning, including the November 2010 trust document, but Bruce moved to quash the subpoena. Bruce argued that the documents were not directly relevant to the probate petition, because the petition challenged Donald's capacity...