Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of Manuel
| Decision Date | 22 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | B297334 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of SUSAN MANUEL. GREGORY (MANUEL) MANVELIAN, Petitioner and Respondent, JEFFREY SIEGEL, as Conservator, Respondent, v. YANA MARIE MANVEL, Objector and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. No. BP141252 David J. Cowan, Judge. Affirmed.
Yana Manvel, in pro. per.; Schorr Law, Zachary D. Schorr, and Valerie H. Li for Objector and Appellant.
Klapach & Klapach and Joseph S. Klapach; Adam L Streltzer for Petitioner and Respondent Gregory Manvelian.
Law Offices of Stewart J. Levin and Stewart J. Levin; Zarmi Law and David Zarmi for Respondent Jeffrey Siegel, as Conservator.
Gregory Manvelian filed a petition for a conservatorship of his mother, Susan Manuel, which the probate court granted. Yana Manvel, Susan's daughter, appealed, and we affirmed. (See Conservatorship of Manuel (Feb. 14, 2017, B266834) [nonpub. opn.].)
Jeffrey Siegel, the court-appointed conservator, subsequently filed a petition on behalf of Susan against Yana to recover real property and other assets Yana arranged for Susan to transfer to her. On the third day of the trial on the conservator's petition, Siegel, Yana, and Gregory reached a settlement that resolved all claims in the conservatorship proceeding. Among other terms, the settlement required Yana to return certain property. Each of the three parties orally agreed to the terms of the settlement on the record and in open court. Siegel and Yana (but not Gregory) also submitted a stipulation and proposed order that resolved Siegel's petition against Yana by requiring Yana to return the property. The probate court signed and entered the order.
Four months later Gregory filed a motion to enforce the oral settlement agreement. Yana opposed the motion, arguing she agreed to the settlement because of extrinsic fraud and under duress. Yana also filed a motion to set aside the written stipulation and order resolving Siegel's petition against her. The probate court granted Gregory's motion to enforce the settlement and denied Yana's motion to vacate the written stipulation and order. Yana appeals from both orders. We conclude that we have jurisdiction to hear both appeals and that the probate court did not err in making either ruling. Therefore, we affirm.
As discussed in our prior opinion, Susan had two children, Yana and Gregory. At one time Susan owned substantial assets, but over time she transferred some of them (or rights to them) to Yana. In 2007 Susan's revocable trust was amended to name Yana as the sole beneficiary. Also in 2007 Susan transferred to Yana three parcels of real property, one of which was in Orange County and included an income-producing commercial mall (the Orange County property). In 2008 Susan transferred to Yana two condominium units in the Ocean Towers buildings in Santa Monica. And in 2013 Yana became the sole primary beneficiary of Susan's $1.4 million individual retirement account (IRA), which previously had designated Yana as a 50 percent beneficiary and Gregory as a 50 percent beneficiary. Meanwhile, although in 2012 the trust was amended to name Gregory as a 50 percent beneficiary, in March 2013 the trust was amended to again name Yana as the sole beneficiary of the trust. (Conservatorship of Manuel, supra, B266834.)
Gregory filed a petition in 2013 to appoint a conservatorship of Susan's person and estate. In 2015 the probate court conducted a seven-day trial at which Susan, Yana, Gregory, Dr. Susan Bernatz, the court appointed expert, and several percipient witnesses testified. The court granted Gregory's petition and issued letters of conservatorship. In February 2017 this court affirmed the probate court's orders. (Conservatorship of Manuel, supra, B266834.)
In February 2017 Siegel filed a petition on behalf of Susan under Probate Code section 850 to compel Yana to transfer certain property back to Susan.[1] In particular, Siegel sought to recover the three parcels of real property and the two condominium units Susan had transferred to Yana in 2007 and 2008, as well as $720, 000 Yana allegedly caused Susan to withdraw from her IRA and give to Yana. Siegel also asserted several causes of action, including for financial elder abuse, and claims for punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Siegel filed a separate petition for a substituted judgment modifying and reforming Susan's trust to provide that, upon Susan's death, Yana and Gregory would receive equal distributions from the trust estate.
The probate court held a three-day trial on the section 850 petition. The following witnesses testified: Yana; Richard Skolnick, an attorney who prepared Susan's amended trust and the deeds transferring the parcels of real property and condominium units from Susan to Yana; Vineendra Jain, a certified property manager and real estate broker who testified that the Orange County property generated over $1 million between 2012 and 2018; Dr. Bernatz, who testified that by 2012 Susan suffered from significant cognitive impairment and did not understand the nature and consequences of her transfers to Yana; and Dr. Robert Kahn Rose, a geriatric psychiatrist who, in contrast to Dr. Bernatz, testified Susan had testamentary and contractual decisionmaking capacity as late as 2013, only minimal susceptibility to undue influence prior to 2008, and only mild to moderate susceptibility from 2012 to 2013.
On August 6, 2018, the third day of trial, Yana, Gregory, Siegel, and Susan (through her attorney) informed the court they had reached a settlement. Counsel for the parties recited the terms of the settlement on the record and in open court. The parties agreed that Siegel, as Susan's conservator, would obtain title to one of the condominium units in the Ocean Towers building and to the Orange County property and that Yana would retain title to the remaining properties. The parties agreed that Susan's estate would pay $190, 000 for Gregory's attorneys' fees and costs and that Yana and Gregory would receive equal shares of the remainder of the trust estate upon Susan's death. The parties also agreed to release all claims against each other, including the conservator's claims to recover the money allegedly obtained by Yana from Susan's IRA.[2] After counsel stated the terms, the probate court asked Yana, Gregory, and Siegel, individually whether each of them understood the terms, had enough time to discuss the terms with their attorneys, and agreed to the terms. They all answered they did.
After Yana, Gregory, Siegel, and counsel for Susan stated their agreement to the settlement, Yana and Siegel (but not Gregory) submitted a signed written stipulation regarding the section 850 petition that contained only those settlement terms relevant to them-namely, that Siegel would release all claims against Yana and that Siegel, as Susan's conservator, would receive title to one of the condominium units and the Orange County property. The probate court signed and entered the written stipulation and order that day.
In December 2018 Gregory filed a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 for an order to enter judgment enforcing the terms of the settlement the parties had orally agreed to in court on August 6, 2018. Yana opposed the motion, arguing that her attorneys had “work[ed] with opposing counsel to unduly pressure her to settle” and that she agreed to the settlement under duress. Yana claimed that at the trial her attorneys were unwilling to present evidence favorable to her case and that they told her the judge “hated her, ” thought she “was on the road to perjury, ” “would jail her, ” and would “fine her treble damages” if she did not settle. Yana also filed a motion to set aside the stipulation and order signed by the parties (other than Gregory) and the probate court that resolved Siegel's section 850 petition.
In April 2019 the probate court denied Yana's motion to set aside the written stipulation and order and granted Gregory's motion for an order to enter judgment enforcing the March 6, 2018 oral settlement. The court found Yana presented insufficient evidence her attorneys were unprepared for trial, were “selling [her] out, ” or were in “cahoots” with the attorneys for Gregory or Siegel. Yana filed a timely notice of appeal from both the order granting Gregory's motion for entry of judgment and the order denying Yana's motion to set aside the stipulation and order.
We agree with the parties the order granting Gregory's motion to enforce the oral settlement agreement is appealable. “In all proceedings governed by” the Probate Code, “an appeal may be taken” from an order “[d]irecting or allowing payment of a cost” or “authorizing, allowing, or directing payment of compensation or expenses of an attorney.” (§ 1300, subds. (d) & (e).) The order granting Gregory's motion is both: It authorizes and approves payment from Susan's estate to Jackson Chen, Susan's attorney, of “$26, 025.00, plus an additional $330.00 in reimbursement of costs, ” and it authorizes and approves payment from the estate to Gregory's attorneys of $190, 000. In addition, “[w]ith respect to a trust, the grant or denial” of “[a]ny final order” under section 17200...
To continue reading
Request your trial