CB Parrish v. Little

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: TUCHER, P. J.
• Docket Number: A167785
• Decision Date: 06 March 2024
• Parties: CB PARRISH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARILYN D. LITTLE, as Trustee, etc. Defendant and Respondent.

1

CB PARRISH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARILYN D. LITTLE, as Trustee, etc. Defendant and Respondent.

A167785

California Court of Appeals, First District, Third Division

March 6, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

(County of Lake Super. Ct. No. CV417316)

TUCHER, P. J.

This appeal relates to a dispute about the 1985 Lopes Family Trust (the Trust), which was established by Raphael and Barbara Lopes, who were the parents of appellant, CB Parrish, and respondent, Marilyn Little.^[1]Parrish, who has represented herself throughout this action, sued Little as the executor of the Trust, seeking redress for breach of written and oral agreements to distribute half of the assets of the Trust to Parrish. Judgment was entered against Parrish after she presented her evidence at a court trial. (Code Civ. Proc § 631.8 (section 631.8).) We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The Trust

The Trust was created by the "Lopes Family Trust Agreement," dated October 1, 1985 (the Trust Agreement). Raphael and Barbara Lopes executed the Trust Agreement as trustors and co-trustees. Successor trustees were appointed in paragraph A of Article 8, which originally provided that when both original trustees ceased to serve, the trustors' two daughters, Parrish and Little, would become alternate successor co-trustees. During their lifetimes Raphael and Barbara were primary beneficiaries of the Trust and reserved their power to withdraw assets and modify the Trust. Pertinent to the present appeal, paragraph D of Article 3 originally provided that, upon the death of the surviving trustor, the trustee shall allocate the remaining balance of the estate "among the descendants of the trustors who survive the surviving trustor ...."

On May 3, 1999, Barbara and Raphael executed an "Amendment To Lopes Family Trust Agreement" (the 1999 Amendment) which makes three amendments to the Trust Agreement. Article 8 was amended to provide that if the original trustees were unable to serve, the alternate successor trustee shall be Little, and if she cannot serve, Bank of America. The other two amendments pertain to distribution of assets after the death of both trustors.

Paragraph D of Article 3 was amended to provide that upon the death of the surviving trustor, the balance of the estate is to be distributed as follows: "to such one or more descendants of the trustors, either outright or in trust and on such terms and conditions, as the surviving trustor may appoint by a provision in his or her valid last will specifically referring to and exercising this limited power of appointment. Any balance of the trust estate not effectively appointed in that manner shall be distributed to [Little] outright and not in trust, with the hope and desire that she will use a maximum of one-half (1/2) of the property so distributed as needed to provide her sister, [Parrish], with reasonable and adequate care and medical treatment for the balance of her sister's life. If [Little] does not survive the surviving trustor and [Parrish] does survive the surviving trustor, such unappointed balance of the trust estate shall instead be allocated to [a trust for Parrish as] described in ARTICLE 4 ...."

The 1999 Amendment also amended Article 4 to provide that any property allocated to Parrish from the Trust is to be held in trust for her benefit until her death. This amendment grants the trustee discretion to distribute income and principle as "reasonably necessary for the beneficiary's proper support, health care and maintenance, after taking into consideration other resources (including governmental assistance programs) known to be available to the beneficiary."

Parrish's Complaint

In 2017, Parrish filed the underlying action for breach of contract. In her first cause of action, she alleges that Raphael and Barbara Lopes breached written and oral agreements to convey half their estate to her. This claim is premised in part on an allegation that the Trust Agreement constitutes a written agreement between Parrish and her parents. Parrish alleges that the Lopeses breached this alleged agreement and related oral promises by executing the 1999 Amendment, which "effectively" disinherited her, without informing her of what they had done. In her second cause of action, Parrish alleges she is a third party beneficiary of an oral agreement pursuant to which Little promised the Lopeses that she would give Parrish half the Trust estate. According to the complaint, the impetus for this agreement was the Lopeses' mistaken belief that the 1999 Amendment was necessary to protect Parrish from losing her "inheritance to government agencies."

In a 15-page attachment to the complaint, Parrish alleges additional facts. She contends that in 2003, her parents "sat [her] down and very gravely announced" that they had made Little their" 'executor'" because "the laws for family trusts had changed." Raphael began to cry as he told Parrish that he had made Little" 'promise'" him that she would give Parrish half the estate. Parrish alleges further that Barbara told her the reason Little was made executor was to prevent Medi-Cal from taking money from the estate for Parrish's healthcare expenses. Parrish assured her mother that would not have happened, but Parrish did not understand, at that time, that her parents had changed the Trust in a manner that would affect her inheritance.

Parrish alleges that at some unspecified time she learned that Raphael wanted to buy her a house, and she persuaded him to have the Trust buy it so Little would not become jealous. They were still house hunting in early 2005, when Parrish needed surgery and a place to stay while she recovered. She could not stay with her parents because Little objected and, according to Parrish, the Lopeses were afraid to cross Little. So the Trust bought Parrish an old mobile home as a temporary solution.

By the time Parrish recovered from surgery, Raphael was having health problems and her parents were too preoccupied to deal with "real estate concerns," Parrish alleged. After Raphael passed away in 2010, Barbara started having her own problems. In 2014, Barbara told Parrish that Parrish would have to wait until after Barbara died to get a house. Barbara agreed to pay for some repairs at Parrish's mobile home, but she told Parrish, "You can afford a place with a good roof after I'm gone."

(Underscoring omitted.) When payment for repairs came due, Parrish was unable to reach her mother and eventually she learned from Little that Barbara had suffered a stroke. Little allegedly withheld information about Barbara's condition and prevented Parrish from helping with her care. In January 2017, Little's attorney informed Parrish that Barbara had died.

Parrish alleges that she did not know about the 1999 Amendment to the Trust until after both of her parents had died. Prior to her mother's death, she did not "check up on the family trust" because her parents had assured her "numerous times" that she would receive her one-half share. She alleges further that at least six people could testify about these matters, including the fact that Raphael Lopes told Parrish that Little promised to give Parrish half the estate.

Parrish attached three additional documents to her complaint: the 1985 Trust Agreement; the 1999 Amendment; and a letter to Parrish from attorney Debra Blum, dated January 31, 2017. Blum's letter stated that she represented the trustee of the Trust, Little, "and not any beneficiary individually." She offered condolences on the death of Barbara, then quickly turned to the subject of the 1999 Amendment, which she described as follows: "The latest amendment to the Trust specifically excludes you from being a direct beneficiary of the trust assets as long as your sister [Little] survived your parents. The Trust agreement, as amended, indicates that your sister [Little] is to receive all of the assets and that she may distribute as much of it[] as she wishes to you, up to one-half. It is entirely within [Little's] discretion for you to receive any of the assets of the Trust." Blum enclosed the trustee's notice of the content of the Trust, and advised Parrish that the trustee was transferring to Parrish title to the mobile home where Parrish was living at the time.

The Prior Appeal

In October 2017, the trial court sustained without leave to amend a demurrer to Parrish's complaint. A different panel of this court reversed the judgment. (Parrish v. Little (May 31, 2019, A153961) [nonpub. opn.] (Parrish I).)

The Parrish I court found that the trial court erred in concluding Parrish was barred by the express terms of the written trust instrument from seeking relief for breach of an oral agreement. Moreover, the complaint states a viable claim under the reasoning of Estate of Duke (2015) 61 Cal.4th 871 (Duke), which holds that "an unambiguous will may be reformed to conform to the testator's intent if clear and convincing evidence establishes that the will contains a mistake in the testator's expression of intent at the time the will was drafted, and also establishes the testator's actual specific intent at the time the will was drafted." (Id. at p. 898; see also pp. 875, 879.) In reversing the judgment, the Parrish I court reasoned that Duke permits reform of any unambiguous donative document, not just a will, and that Parrish's allegation that her "parents intended that their estate would be divided equally between their daughters" was sufficiently specific to bring her case within the rule announced in Duke.

The March 2023 Trial

On March 16 and 17, 2023, Parrish presented her claims at a court trial. The court deferred ruling on most motions in limine, with a few exceptions. It granted a defense motion to exclude evidence of an alleged written agreement...