Syre v. Douglas

324 Cal.Rptr.3d 553

Kimberly SYRE, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant,

v.Mark DOUGLAS, Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.

E080594

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2.

Filed August 19, 2024

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Inyo County. Stephen M. Place, Judge.

Affirmed. (Super.Ct.No. ICSICVCV202268113)

Law Offices of Brian Lamb, and Brian Lamb for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant.

California Indian Legal Services, Rachel Leiterman, San Jose, and Michael Godbe, for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.

Zachary Newman for Legal Aid Association of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.

OPINION

RAMIREZ, P. J.

Plaintiff Kimberly Syre appeals from an order denying her motion to disqualify California Indian Legal Services (CILS) who represents defendant Mark Douglas. Plaintiff contacted CILS seeking representation prior to filing her lawsuit for quiet title against defendant, but after a telephone conversation with a CILS intake advocate, CILS declined to represent plaintiff due to non-residency in Inyo County. Plaintiff sought other counsel and filed a quiet title lawsuit against defendant, who successfully sought representation from CILS.

On appeal, plaintiff asserts the trial court misconstrued the California Rules of Professional Conduct¹ and that its erroneous legal conclusions require reversal. We affirm the judgment.

Background

A. Background of the Underlying Litigation

Plaintiff is the niece of the late Charlotte Willett (Willett), owner of real property in the city of Bishop, Inyo County, California. Defendant is Willett’s son, who is homeless and lacks a source of income. In June 2008, Willett established a living trust, "Charlotte A. Willett Trust dated June 14, 2008," (Trust) into which Willett transferred the real property. At the time, Willett was not in communication with defendant; Willett wanted to transfer her real and personal property to defendant but wanted him to be clean of drugs and alcohol first.

Until 2013, Willett had rented out her property and resided in a mobile home. The renters had mistreated Willett’s property, requiring extensive repairs and work. At plaintiff’s suggestion, Willett sold the mobile home and resumed residence in her property. Plaintiff offered to help Willett with the cost of repairs in return for a half-interest in Willett’s property. Willett executed a grant deed transferring the real property from herself to both Willett and plaintiff as joint tenants; the deed was recorded. The grant deed did not refer to the property being in a trust. The intent was that Willett would continue to reside on the property for the rest of her life. Willett’s Trust was amended to name plaintiff as successor trustee, with instructions to distribute 50 percent of the Trust to defendant.

In return for the interest in the property, plaintiff was to pay $100,000 to Willett, with $30,000 to be deposited into Willett’s checking account and $70,000 into a joint savings account, under the names of Willett and plaintiff, for which Willett was to have a bank card to access the funds. Plaintiff also was responsible for paying the property taxes and homeowners’ insurance. However, the bank card provided to Willett had only plaintiff's name on it preventing Willett from receiving any funds deposited into Willett’s savings account, and Willett received a statement from the tax collector indicating the property taxes had not been paid.

In late 2019, Willett was still unable to access the money in the accounts, and plaintiff stopped responding to Willett’s phone calls and text messages, causing the relationship to sour. When plaintiff did answer one call, plaintiff was loud, used abusive language, and threatened to charge Willett rent or evict her from the property. Willett, upset by plaintiff's abusive treatment, called her cousin, Pauline Adams and her close friend Margery Hammer, informing them of these developments. Willett decided to remove plaintiff from Willett’s Trust, and to seek a way to change the deed on her property to remove plaintiff's name.

In 2020, Willett fell, sustaining fractures to her leg and foot. Willett expressed to Adams her disappointment that plaintiff never attempted to contact Willett regarding her rehabilitation, and told Adams that she felt that plaintiff was just waiting for Willett to die to get Willett’s property. That same year, Willett expressed the intent to change her Trust and asked Adams to be the trustee.

Even before reuniting with defendant, Willett also expressed to Adams that she wished all her property to go to defendant, especially her personal property. Willett was aware she could not transfer her interest in the property to defendant without plaintiff's knowledge. In 2021, Willett started the process of amending her Trust in favor of defendant, even before she reunited with him. Willett named Adams as successor trustee, removing plaintiff's name. Willett’s estate attorney, Linda Hess, advised Willett that she could break the joint tenancy by transferring her one-half interest by way of a grant deed and made other modifications to effectuate Willett’s intentions. Defendant was unaware of the changes being made in his favor.

In March or April 2021, defendant contacted Willett to inform her that he was clean and sober. Early in 2021, Willett, who felt betrayed by plaintiff and deemed to provide for defendant, modified her Trust to transfer all her personal property and her interest in the real property to defendant, removing plaintiff from her Trust. The modified trust instrument expressly provided that the trustee should transfer all of Willett’s interest in the property, as well as all her personal property, to defendant. Willett also executed a grant deed transferring her interest in the property to defendant, although this deed omitted reference to the Trust. The grant deed was recorded on May 11, 2021. This deed also indicated that Willett was conveying the property as an individual, rather than trustee.

Willett and defendant maintained a strong relationship until Willett’s death. Willett was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer in May 2021 and died in June. Shortly before her death, Willett directed Hess to modify the Trust again, instructing Hess to transfer $10,000 to defendant, but Willett died before being able to execute the document.

Following Willett’s death, and while defendant was away, plaintiff entered the property and changed all the locks. When defendant attempted to gain entry to the property upon his return, he was told he was not permitted to do so, and that plaintiff had threatened to have defendant arrested if he returned. Later, defendant learned that plaintiff had been selling many personal property possessions— some of which were defendant’s own possessions—to third parties, and that plaintiff considered a trailer that was located on the property to be hers. Among the items to which defendant has been denied access are his art supplies, which has prevented him from pursuing his livelihood of selling his artwork.

On July 6, 2022, plaintiff filed a complaint for quiet title against defendant and Adams as the successor trustee. On August 8, defendant answered the complaint, and filed a cross-complaint for (1) quiet title, (2) conversion, (3) trespass to chattels, and (4) declaratory relief. Defendant also sought injunctive relief to enjoin plaintiff from preventing defendant’s entry to or possession of the property, or the sale of property belonging to defendant.

Plaintiff sought multiple stays of the proceedings prior to complete discovery on a potential conflict of interest of GILS, which were granted. On November 30, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify defendant’s counsel of record, GILS, alleging that GILS had a conflict of interests stemming from plaintiff’s attempt to obtain legal representation by that public law office.² The motion also sought a further stay of proceedings pending a ruling. Defendant opposed the motion.

On January 16, 2023, the trial court denied the motion to disqualify CILS, but continued the stay of proceedings through January 24, to allow time to file an appeal. On January 27, plaintiff appealed the ruling.

B. Facts Pertinent to the Disqualification Motion

On July 2, 2021, plaintiff called CILS’s office and spoke to an intake advocate, a person who is not an attorney, and whose primary duties include answering the telephone. CILS is a grant-funded law office providing legal services to qualified individuals.³ It does not ordinarily represent clients who own real property in title disputes, or who reside outside of Inyo County. For this reason, before accepting a case, CILS obtains preliminary information from prospective clients to determine if they are eligible for the grant-funded services. Intake advocates are trained to inform prospective clients that their case cannot be accepted unless and until their issue has been discussed at a "Case Acceptance Meeting."

Plaintiff, represented by attorney Brian Lamb, filed a quiet title complaint on July 6, 2022, and it was served on defendant the same day. On April 5, after being served with plaintiff's complaint, defendant contacted CILS for legal assistance in obtaining recognition of his rights respecting real property in Bishop, bringing documents, including grant deeds, transferring all or part of the title to the real estate to him. Attorney Michael Godbe had no recollection of plaintiff's name or her contact with the CILS office, and the intake advocate who had spoken to plaintiff had not worked for CILS for over five months, since September or October 2021.

When contacted by defendant, CILS attorney Rachel Leiterman investigated the possibility of undue influence in the execution of the deeds by contacting Willett’s estate attorney Hess, who assured CILS that the documents reflected Willett’s true intent, without undue influence. Defendant was eligible for...