Chui v. Chui
| Docket Number | B306918 |
| Decision Date | 03 March 2022 |
| Parties | BENJAMIN TZE-MAN CHUI, as Trustee, etc., et al. Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CHRISTINE CHUI, Individually and as Personal Representative, etc., Defendant and Appellant; MICHAEL CHUI, a Minor, et al., Appellants; ESTHER SHOU MAY CHUI CHAO et al., Respondents. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION [1]
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No BP154245, David J. Cowan, Judge. Affirmed.
Bohm Wildish & Matsen and James G. Bohm for Defendant and Appellant Christine Chui.
Ambrosi & Doerges, Mary E. Doerges; Karcher Harmes and Kathryn Karcher for Appellant Michael Chui.
Law Offices of Michael S. Overing, Michael S. Overing and Edward C. Wilde for Appellant Jacqueline Chui.
Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Alex M. Weingarten, Eric J Bakewell and Sean P. Hanle for Plaintiff and Respondent Benjamin Chui.
Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro, Miriam J. Golbert and James T. Grant for Plaintiff and Respondent Margaret Tak-Ying Chui Lee.
Oldman, Cooley, Sallus, Birnberg, Coleman & Gold and Justin B. Gold for Respondent Esther Shou May Chui Chao.
Hinojosa & Forer, Jeffrey Forer and Shannon H. Burns for Respondent Jackson Chen.
McBride Law Group and Julia C. McBride for Respondents Helena Chang Chui and Ruth Chang.
In proceedings under the Probate Code concerning the administration of a trust, the co-trustees and a beneficiary of the trust filed petitions under Probate Code section 850[2] alleging that Christine Chui misappropriated trust assets and committed elder abuse against the trustor. On the day set for trial on the petitions, the litigants settled and recited the terms before the court. The terms affecting Christine's minor children-Jacqueline and Michael[3]-who are beneficiaries under the trust, were subject to the approval of their guardian ad litem, Jackson Chen, and the court. Chen, on behalf of the Minors, subsequently entered into an agreement with the co-trustees and certain trust beneficiaries, but not Christine (the first GAL agreement). The first GAL agreement recited Chen's approval of the oral settlement agreement and set forth additional terms.
Christine sought to cancel and repudiate the agreements through a variety of procedural methods. The court granted the co-trustees' motion to enforce the oral settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, but denied Chen's petition for approval of the first GAL agreement. Chen, the co-trustees, and certain trust beneficiaries-but not Christine-subsequently entered into a second agreement (the second GAL agreement). Over Christine's objections, the court granted Chen's petition to approve that agreement. The court also denied Christine's petition to remove Chen as the Minors' guardian ad litem in the trust litigation and granted Chen's petition to be appointed the Minors' guardian ad litem in related probate cases.
Christine and the Minors appealed, challenging the orders (1) enforcing the oral settlement agreement; (2) granting Chen's petition to approve the second GAL agreement; (3) appointing Chen as the Minors' guardian ad litem in certain probate cases; and (4) denying Christine's motion to remove Chen as the Minors' guardian ad litem.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the court's orders.
King Wah Chui (King) and Chi May Chui (May) had three children: Robert, Margaret, and Esther.
Robert married Helena Chui in 1974. They had one child, Benjamin. Robert and Helena divorced in 2002.
Robert married Christine in March 2003. They had two children, Jacqueline (born March 2003) and Michael (born May 2004).
In 1988, King and May established a revocable trust (the Trust). The assets of the Trust consist primarily of interests in residential apartment complexes and related business entities, other real property, and financial accounts.
After May died in March 2004, the Trust was divided into three subtrusts: Trust A, Trust B, and Trust C.[4] Trust B and Trust C were irrevocable. Among the assets of Trust C are interests in properties the parties refer to as Taylor, Paularino, Domingo, Derek (or Pepperwood), and Calle Cristina.[5] According to the Trust document, these properties are to be distributed upon King's death to Robert or, if Robert is not then living, to Robert's children- Benjamin, Jacqueline, and Michael-equally.
After May's death, King amended Trust A several times.[6]Under an amendment made in June 2004, interests in properties the parties refer to as Three Lanterns and Sycamore are to be distributed upon King's death to Robert or, if Robert is not then living, to Christine; but if Christine is not then living, these properties are distributed to Michael.
Under an amendment made in January 2005, a certain residence in Monterey Park is to be given to Jacqueline.[7]
Under an amendment made in November 2005, property the parties refer to as Atlantic Towers is to be distributed upon King's death to Robert or, if Robert is not then living, to Christine.[8]
In addition to the distributions described above, the Trust document provides for distributions of real properties, business interests, and money to Robert, Margaret, Esther, Benjamin, Jacqueline, and Michael, among others. The Trust document includes other bequests that are not relevant for our purposes.
The Trust document further provides for the distribution of the Trust residue; that is, trust property for which there is no specific bequest. Under the residuary provisions, 30 percent of the residue goes to each of Robert, Margaret, and Esther, and 10 percent goes to Benjamin; if, however, Robert predeceases King, Robert's 30 percent share of the residue is distributed in equal parts to each of Robert's children-Benjamin, Jacqueline, and Michael.
In February 2011, King, whose cognitive abilities had allegedly been in decline for some time, resigned as trustee of the Trust and, pursuant to the Trust document, Robert and Margaret became co-trustees.
In January 2013, Robert became incapacitated and, in March 2013, the superior court appointed Benjamin (Robert's son by his first wife, Helena) to act as co-trustee of the Trust together with Margaret. (We will sometimes refer to Benjamin and Margaret collectively as the co-trustees.)
Robert died in June 2013.
King died in June 2014.
In October 2012 (prior to Robert's and King's deaths), Esther filed a petition in the Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that Robert and Margaret improperly delegated to Christine their fiduciary duties as trustees of the Trust. The petition was assigned case No. BP137413. Esther sought an accounting and an order removing Robert and Margaret as trustees.
In March 2013, Esther requested the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the Minors in Los Angeles Superior Court case No. BP137413. The court, over Christine's objection, granted the request and appointed Chen as the Minors' guardian ad litem. At that time, Jacqueline and Michael were ages 10 and 8, respectively.
In February 2014 (after Robert's death and the appointment of Benjamin as co-trustee of the Trust), Esther filed an amended petition in case No. BP137413, alleging that Christine converted trust assets for her benefit. On the same day, Esther filed another amended petition under section 850 in the same case alleging that Benjamin and Margaret breached their fiduciary duties as co-trustees of the Trust.
In August 2015, Benjamin and Margaret filed a petition in case No. BP137413 for an order surcharging Robert's estate based on allegations that Robert breached his fiduciary duties as trustee "by making improper and unauthorized payments and disbursements of [t]rust assets."
In July 2016, Benjamin filed a petition under section 850 in Los Angeles Superior Court case No. BP154245. Benjamin alleged, among other claims, that Robert and Christine committed elder financial abuse against King and, acting as trustee and/or trustee de son tort, breached their fiduciary duties and misappropriated trust assets-including money, jewelry, and antiques-for their own benefit. Benjamin sought compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, an order requiring Christine to disgorge assets wrongfully taken from the Trust, and a determination that Christine be deemed to have predeceased King for purposes of section 259.
In October 2016, Christine filed petitions in Los Angeles Superior Court case No. BP155345 to remove Benjamin and Margaret as trustees of the Trust based on alleged breaches of trust. Christine sought, among other relief, an order suspending and removing Benjamin and Margaret as trustees and surcharging them for losses to Trust A incurred as a result of their mismanagement. Benjamin moved to dismiss the petition under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16). The court denied the motion on February 20, 2018.[9]
In August 2017, Margaret filed a "joinder" to Benjamin's petition in case No. BP154245. In March 2018, Benjamin and Margaret filed a first amended petition that alleged claims similar to those Benjamin alleged in the original petition and sought similar relief.
Esther filed another amended petition in January 2017 under case No BP155345. She alleged that King suffered from dementia since 2004 and was susceptible to undue influence since that time. Christine and Robert allegedly took advantage of King's vulnerability to wrongfully transfer to themselves approximately $10 million of trust assets. Esther sought, among other relief, an order that Christine return the property taken from the Trust and pay double damages pursuant to section 859. She also sought an order determining...
To continue reading
Request your trial