Esslinger v. Cummins

50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 538, 144 Cal. App. 4th 517, 2006 Daily Journal DAR 14531, 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10188, 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1712
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedOctober 31, 2006
DocketG034707
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 538 (Esslinger v. Cummins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Esslinger v. Cummins, 50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 538, 144 Cal. App. 4th 517, 2006 Daily Journal DAR 14531, 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10188, 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1712 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinions

Opinion

FYBEL, J.

Introduction

Kenneth J. Cummins, as trustee of the Esslinger Family Trust (the Trustee), appeals from a probate court order compelling him to account to Stephen W. Esslinger (Stephen),1 a remainder beneficiary. The Trustee argues Stephen, as a remainder beneficiary, lacked standing to petition the probate court for an order compelling the Trustee to account. Stephen moved to dismiss the appeal, contending the order is not appealable.

We conclude the order is appealable and hold a remainder beneficiary has standing under Probate Code section 17200, subdivision (b)(7) to petition the probate court for an order compelling a trustee to account. Probate Code section 16061 gives a remainder beneficiary the right to request information from the trustee and to petition the court under section 17200, subdivision (b)(7) for that information or a particular account if the trustee unreasonably fails to comply. The probate court has discretion to grant or deny such a petition. In this case, the probate court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the Trustee to account to Stephen. We therefore deny the motion to dismiss and affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

Stephen is a remainder beneficiary of the Esslinger Family Trust (the Trust).2 Stephen is a grandson of the trust settlor, Paul H. Esslinger.

[521]*521In June 2004, Stephen requested that the Trustee produce trust documents and account to him for the period from 1997 to the time of the request. The Trustee provided Stephen some information but declined to provide him an accounting on the ground he was not entitled to one as a remainder beneficiary.

In August 2004, Stephen filed a petition under Probate Code section 17200, subdivision (b)(7), demanding an accounting for the years 1997 through 2004 and seeking production of certain trust documents. The petition alleged Stephen is a remainder beneficiary of the Trust and complied with Probate Code section 16061 by previously demanding an accounting for the years 1997 through 2004. The petition alleged: “More than sixty (60) days has elapsed since delivery of the demand for an accounting. Despite these demands, no accounting was ever done by [the] Trustee.” The petition prayed for an order directing the Trustee to account to Stephen for the period from September 15, 1997, to the date the petition was filed.

Stephen filed a supplemental petition in October 2004. The supplemental petition essentially is the same as the original but adds a request for production of trust documents in the prayer for relief.

In response to the petition, the Trustee alleged he had provided Stephen with all information to which he was entitled under the Probate Code, including accountings for the years 1996 through 1998. The Trustee asserted the accountings covering the years 1999 through 2003 were sent to all trust beneficiaries, including Stephen, in August 2004. In a supplemental response, the Trustee asserted Stephen, as a remainder beneficiary, lacked standing to seek an accounting under Probate Code section 16062, subdivision (a).

Stephen filed objections to the accountings he received from the Trustee. Stephen asserted the accountings were incomplete, requested the court to disallow the accountings, and requested the court to direct the Trustee to prepare “a true account” for the years 1999 through 2003.

At the hearing on Stephen’s petition, the probate court stated, “[t]he court, under [Probate Code section] 17200, can order accountings in spite of [Probate Code section] 16062 in terms of any beneficiary that requests it.” A minute order entered November 10, 2004, required the Trustee to prepare and file formal accountings for 1999 through 2003. The Trustee filed a notice of appeal from that minute order.

[522]*522Discussion

I.

The Order Directing the Trustee to Prepare Accountings Is Appealable.

Stephen moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground an order directing a trustee to account is not appealable. The order here is appealable because it decides, in effect, that Stephen has a right to an accounting. We therefore deny the motion to dismiss the appeal.

An appeal lies from any order made appealable by the Probate Code. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(10).) In the case of trusts, the Probate Code permits an appeal to be taken from any final order under Probate Code section 17200 et seq., with two exceptions, identified in Probate Code section 1304, subdivision (a). One exception is an order “[cjompelling the trustee to submit an account or report acts as trustee.” (Prob. Code, § 1304, subd. (a)(1).)

An order to account is appealable when it expressly or implicitly decides other issues that could be the subject of an appealable probate order. (Evangelho v. Presoto (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 615, 622 [79 Cal.Rptr.2d 146] (Evangelho).) In Evangelho, trust beneficiaries petitioned for an accounting, alleging the trustee had diverted trust funds to a joint tenancy bank account she controlled. The probate court ordered the trustee to account for trust funds and transactions involving the bank account. On the trustee’s appeal, the trust beneficiaries argued the order to account was not appealable. The court agreed an order granting an accounting is not appealable under Probate Code section 1304 and explained that “[ujntil the accounting is made and the order sustaining objections or approving the accounting is entered, there is no appealable order.” (Evangelho, supra, at p. 622.)

But in the next paragraph of the opinion, the court held the order was appealable because “the issue is broader than the order of a mere accounting” and “[the trustee]’s contention is that the court’s order could not compel an accounting of the joint tenancy account because a joint tenancy account is an asset separate and distinct from the trust.” (Evangelho, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 622.) The order compelling the trustee to account was appealable because it implicitly decided the joint tenancy account was a trust asset, which could be the subject of an appealable order.

[523]*523Here, the probate court’s order necessarily determined Stephen had the power or right to request an accounting. An order determining the existence of a power, duty, or right under a trust is appealable. (Prob. Code, §§ 1304, subd. (a), 17200, subd. (b)(2).) The probate court’s order compelling the Trustee is therefore appealable.

Stephen argues the probate court did not decide the issue of standing because, under Probate Code section 17200, the probate court ordered accountings on its own motion. Section 17200 did not give the probate court jurisdiction to order accountings on its own motion. The probate court’s jurisdiction under section 17200 to hear matters relating to the internal affairs of a trust is invoked by petition. “The clear legislative intent was to authorize the probate court to hear and decide any petition for instructions filed by a trustee regarding the internal affairs of a trust.” (Conservatorship of Irvine (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 587]; see also Estate of Heggstad (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 943, 951 [20 Cal.Rptr.2d 433].)

We construe the probate court’s order in a manner bringing it within our jurisdiction, rather than outside of it. Stephen petitioned for an accounting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Coxe v. Vilk-Coxe CA4/3
California Court of Appeal, 2025
Berry v. Antelope Valley Hospital CA2/4
California Court of Appeal, 2025
Godoy v. Linzner
California Court of Appeal, 2024
Colvis v. Binswanger CA1/5
California Court of Appeal, 2024
Richter v. Manber CA2/4
California Court of Appeal, 2023
Healy v. Donnelly CA4/3
California Court of Appeal, 2023
Richert. v. Colvin CA5
California Court of Appeal, 2022
Conservatorship of Farrant
California Court of Appeal, 2021
Venuti v. Venuti CA6
California Court of Appeal, 2020
Donkin v. Donkin
California Court of Appeal, 2020
Blech v. Blech
California Court of Appeal, 2018
Diaz v. Professional Community Management, Inc.
California Court of Appeal, 2017
Diaz v. Prof'l Cmty. Mgmt., Inc.
225 Cal. Rptr. 3d 39 (California Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2017)
Corman v. Corman CA2/7
California Court of Appeal, 2016
Steiger v. Steiger CA4/1
California Court of Appeal, 2016
Babbitt v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
246 Cal. App. 4th 1135 (California Court of Appeal, 2016)
DeJohn v. Wheeler CA1/3
California Court of Appeal, 2016
Castellini v. Cunningham CA3
California Court of Appeal, 2013
Giraldin v. Giraldin
290 P.3d 199 (California Supreme Court, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 538, 144 Cal. App. 4th 517, 2006 Daily Journal DAR 14531, 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10188, 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/esslinger-v-cummins-calctapp-2006.