Estate of Mapes v. Mapes

• Decision Date: 03 June 2014
• Docket Number: A136086
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: Estate of JOHN R. MAPES, Deceased. JOHN R. MAPES, JR., et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. TONJIA MAPES, Objector and Respondent.

Estate of JOHN R. MAPES, Deceased.JOHN R. MAPES, JR., et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. TONJIA MAPES, Objector and Respondent.

A136086

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

Filed: June 3, 2014

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b).This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Alameda County

Super. Ct.No. P-253702)

Brothers John Jr., Stephen and Clifford Mapes appeal from a superior court order denying their petition to vacate several arbitrator's awards.They contend the awards should have been vacated due to the arbitrator's failure to disclose his prior professional relationship with counsel for the opposing party in the arbitrations.We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

John R. Mapes(decedent) died on November 27, 1999, survived by his wife, Tonjia, and three adult sons from a prior marriage.¹In 1993, decedent had executed a will and established a trust, naming Stephen executor of the will and trustee of the trust.The beneficiaries of the trust include appellants, Tonjia, Tonjia's mother, and a number of grandchildren.Decedent's will was admitted to probate and Letters Testamentarywere issued to Stephen in March 2000.The will devised all of decedent's estate to the trust.

During 2000, disputes arose between Tonjia and appellants, and Tonjia filed a number of petitions for relief.Tonjia was represented by Bette Epstein, of Crosby, Heafey Roach & May (Crosby), and Keith Schiller, of Schofield and Schiller.Stephen, as trustee, was represented by John Hartog.John and Clifford were not represented by counsel.

The parties participated in a settlement conference before Judge Richard Hodge on February 14 and 15, 2001, and reached an agreement, the terms of which were read into the record.Among other matters, the settlement agreement confirmed ownership of property located at 4507 Birchwood Court in Union City to appellants, with Tonjia's mother to have a life estate in that property and the right to live there rent free, and appellants to assume the costs of maintenance, real estate taxes, assessments, insurance, upkeep and operating costs for the property.The trustee was to grant deed an undivided one-half interest in the real property at 5 Sandringham Road in Piedmont to Tonjia, as her community property interest in the residence.Tonjia was to pay half of the expenses related to this property and appellants the other half.To this end, upon entry of the order confirming the settlement agreement, $14,000 (half from Tonjia and half from appellants) was to be deposited into a joint account under the control of the trustee(Sandringham fund).At the beginning of each subsequent calendar year, the parties and the trustee were to agree upon an estimated budget for the costs and expenses expected that year.Within 60 days of entry of the order confirming the settlement agreement, appellants were to pay Tonjia half the appraised fair market value of real property in San Diego in which Tonjia held an undivided one-half interest.

The parties agreed that a new, independent trustee would replace Stephen, and the settlement agreement specified the procedure for choosing the new trustee.The parties further agreed that future disputes concerning the trust would be submitted to binding arbitration before William A. Quinby or another arbitrator selected by Quinby.Quinbyhad been a partner at Crosby until July 1996, when he left the firm to become an arbitrator.At Crosby, Quinby had been a member of the firm's Business Litigation Practice Group and chaired the firm's Alternative Dispute Resolution Practice Group.The settlement agreement provided for reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party if any judicial remedy or arbitration was necessary to enforce or interpret the agreement or any party's rights and duties.

Judge Hodge explained that the settlement agreement would be binding once the terms were placed on the record.Clifford, who was not present for the second day of the settlement conference, would also be bound because he had delegated his authority to Stephen as his agent.After the terms were placed on the record, each of the parties verbally agreed to be bound by those terms.Judge Hodge stated his opinion that the terms were fair and advised the parties to live with the deal and not make life miserable for each other.The court's order approving the settlement agreement and modifying the trust was filed on May 7, 2001.

By letter dated July 16, 2001, to Quinby, Tonjia requested arbitration pursuant to the settlement agreement, stating that appellants had not paid her the money due for the San Diego property or performed repairs for the Birchwood Court property that were required by the settlement agreement, and owed her legal fees and expenses for the appraisal of the San Diego property.The enclosures sent with this letter included the Settlement Agreement and the order approving it, which reflected Epstein's representation of Tonjia in the settlement proceedings.So far as the record discloses, this was the point at which Quinby had notice he had been appointed to arbitrate disputes arising under the settlement agreement.

After a hearing on July 27, 2001, at which the parties appeared without counsel, Quinby issued an award requiring appellants to perform the required repairs within 30 days, to pay Tonjia $225,000 (half the market value of the San Diego property), with interest, and to pay fees and costs of $3,471 ($2,250 for the arbitration fee, $76 for Tonjia's airline ticket to San Diego, $275 for the appraisal, and $870 for attorney feesincurred "in connection with this arbitration").The award stated that Tonjia had obtained an appraisal of the property within the time specified in the settlement agreement that set the value at $455,000; appellants admittedly did not comply with terms of the settlement agreement but later obtained an appraisal setting the value at $420,000; that the parties asked the arbitrator to place a fair market value on the property; and that after consultation with the appraisers, the arbitrator set the value at $450,000.

Leonard Soloway began acting as successor trustee on August 2, 2001.²In May 2004, Soloway requested arbitration due to a dispute with appellants over the budget and money due for the Sandringham fund, accusing appellants of engaging in obstructive behavior and abusing the process that was designed to avoid contentious and costly disputes.According to Soloway's arbitration brief, the parties complied with the trustee's requests for contributions to the fund in 2002 and 2003.At the end of December 2003, the trustee requested payments of $21,000 each from appellants and Tonjia, based on a $42,000 projected budget for 2004.Tonjia remitted $21,000 while John and Stephen, through their attorney Craig Finta, remitted $10,000 and a list of questions about the propriety of various expenses.The trustee responded to the questions in letters to Finta and on March 11 informed appellantsthey were in default of the settlement agreement.Further correspondence and meetings among the trustee, Finta and Epstein failed to resolve the dispute.In April 2004, appellants formally rejected the trustee's proposed budget for 2004, John and Stephen each paid an additional $85 based on their own proposed budget, and Clifford was notified to pay $5,085, which he eventually paid in December 2004.

According to Soloway, when Quinby responded to his May 2004request for arbitration by requesting scheduling information and confirmation that all parties agreed to proceed with arbitration, Finta indicated that John and Stephen did not agree and that Finta would not be available until August 9, and challenged Quinby's qualification to actas arbitrator because his state bar membership was inactive.State Bar records indicated that Quinby's membership status had been "inactive" since January 1, 2001.In June, Quinby declined the request for arbitration because he was only available when Finta was not.Appellants rejected an alternate arbitrator suggested by the trustee in August, then failed to respond when the trustee suggested two other potential arbitrators or Quinby.

Appellants, for their part, believed Soloway was using the Sandringham fund to pay for various expenses not contemplated by the settlement agreement, such as Tonjia's utility bills and improvements to the property rather than solely maintenance and repairs.They claimed that Soloway unilaterally set the budget for 2002($35,000) and 2003($39,000) after consultation with Tonjia only, not with appellants.While they paid their designated shares for 2002 and 2003, when Soloway unilaterally set the 2004 budget at $42,000, appellants refused to comply and paid $15,000 (rather than $21,000) to the fund.In January 2004, appellants asked Soloway to explain his practice of paying Tonjia's personal expenses from the fund and he replied that the trust was required to assist Tonjia's occupancy of the residence, which in turn required utilities and basic telephone service.Appellants attribute the failure of negotiations with Soloway to the trustee's refusal to recognize there were limitations on the use of money in the fund.

On October 13, 2004, John and Stephen filed a petition in probate court seeking removal of the trustee, appointment of a successor trustee, appointment of a successor arbitrator due to Quinby's unavailability, recovery of fund property, and an accounting.At a hearing on January 19, 2005, the court ordered John and Stephen to file papers showing cause as to why the matters raised in their petition were not subject to the arbitration agreement.No such papers were filed and the petition was dismissed...