Jaime v. Lopez
| Decision Date | 05 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | F080872 |
| Parties | JUDITH JAIME, as Successor Trustee, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GARY LOPEZ, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County No BPB-16-002416. Kenneth G. Pritchard, Judge.
Dessy & Dessy, Ronald D. Dessy and Fawn Kennedy Dessy for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Gary Lopez, in propria persona, for Defendant and Respondent.
Judith Jaime, plaintiff and successor trustee of The Revocable Living Trust of Frank C. Lopez and Ruby E. Lopez, appeals from adverse aspects of the trial court's ruling on her First Account and Report and supplement thereto, and on beneficiary Gary Lopez's objections. Ultimately, Jaime fails to demonstrate any colorable legal issue or abuse of discretion for our review. Finding her arguments unpersuasive, we affirm.
Jaime did not request a reporter's transcript on appeal as she “does not question the factual findings” set forth in the trial court's February 10, 2020, order. We summarize the trial court's findings below:
Settlors Frank C. Lopez and Ruby E. Lopez executed the Revocable Living Trust of Frank C. Lopez and Ruby E. Lopez on November 30, 1988 (the Trust). Defendant and respondent Gary Lopez along with Jaime, were Trust beneficiaries. After Frank's death, Ruby amended the Trust to appoint Jaime as successor trustee, whereas Jaime and Gary were originally appointed successor co-trustees. After Ruby's death on November 20 2015, Jaime succeeded Ruby as trustee, and the Trust became irrevocable.
Jaime as successor trustee, then filed an unlawful detainer action to remove Gary from Ruby's former residence, which belonged to the Trust, because Gary occupied the property without paying rent. Following a trial which began on May 26, 2016, the court ruled in Jaime's favor; however, to enforce the judgment, Jaime had to use Trust assets to remove Gary after he refused to vacate the property.
During the unlawful detainer action, on May 16, 2016, Gary filed a petition to invalidate the Trust amendment designating Jaime as sole successor trustee. Attorney fees and costs accumulated for more than two years until November 6, 2018, when the court upheld the Trust amendment.
On March 22, 2018, while the unlawful detainer action was ongoing, Jaime, as successor trustee, filed her First Account and Report; she filed a supplement to the Account on October 2, 2019. The Account and its supplement covered from November 10, 2015 through August 7, 2019. Meanwhile, on November 28, 2018, Gary, in his capacity as a Trust beneficiary, filed the objections which form the core of this case.
Gary complained, in pertinent part, that the Account lists a promissory note memorializing his debt to the Trust and interest due on the note because, he claims, he paid off the note. He also objected that “[t]he Account fails to list or account for any of the jewelry that was property of the decedent Ruby E. Lopez.” He further noted the oddity that the Account lists a disbursement to a jeweler for an appraisal of jewelry Jaime admits was buried with Ruby. Finally, Gary protested the Account's lack of support- invoices, explanations, receipts- for nearly $50, 000 paid to Jaime's counsel, Dessy & Dessy, for legal work.
Lacking the record, we cannot determine what occurred leading up to and during the November 8, 2019 trial or any subsequent hearings. However, pertaining to the above objections, the trial court in its statement of decision determined that:
1. Based on testimony and records offered to the court, Gary did not pay off the installment note, nor did Ruby forgive the debt. Rather, Ruby's failure to collect on the note during her lifetime waived the interest on the note until she was unable to care for herself. The parties also agreed to a credit against the debt issued to Gary based on his caring for Ruby. Finally, the Trust itself waived interest on the debt after Ruby's death. Therefore, the court reduced Gary's debt pursuant to the interest waivers and the credit.
2. As Jaime's counsel admitted, the jewelry valued at nearly $30, 000 was buried with Ruby. Furthermore, Jaime failed to show that the Trust required the jewelry's burial. The court also accepted Jaime's acknowledgment that the jewelry appraisal was not a proper charge to the Trust. Consequently, the court surcharged Jaime for the value of the jewelry and the cost of the appraisal.
3. Though the trial court upheld Dessy & Dessy's attorney fees paid by the Trust, the trial court found that Jaime offered insufficient evidence to justify a $15, 799.56 bill by another attorney, Dawn Kennedy, who Dessy apparently brought in as an “expert in trust matters.” The court surcharged Kennedy's bill against Jaime's distributive share.
Jaime thereafter filed this appeal, requesting that we direct the trial court to calculate the balance on the installment note without any waiver of interest and reverse the trial court's surcharges for the jewelry and attorney fees.
We have jurisdiction on appeal pursuant to Probate Code[1] section 1300, subdivisions (b) and (g). Furthermore, because the facts of this case are undisputed, we review the legal effect and significance of those facts de novo. (Gomez v. Smith (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 1016, 1026.) Where a trial court's decision relies on factual and legal bases for its decision, we resolve any factual conflicts in favor of the decision. (Ibid.) Finally, where the trial court's decision is based on a broad grant of discretion, we review the court's decision for abuse of discretion and determine whether the trial court's decision exceeded the bounds of reason, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. (Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 992, 1027 (Antelope).)
Jaime contends on all three issues- the note, the jewelry, and the attorney fees- that the proceedings did not afford her adequate due process. We disagree.
“[D]ue process entitles a person to notice and the opportunity to be heard before a neutral decision-maker.” (Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 57, 82 (Kwan).) Whether the proceedings afforded a party adequate due process requires a detailed factual analysis specific to the proceedings. (See JMS Air Conditioning & Appliance Service, Inc. v. Santa Monica Community College Dist. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 945, 961 (JMS Air).) Without a record, we lack the ability to conduct such an analysis. Furthermore, we disregard Jaime's due process claims because she cannot demonstrate how the proceedings failed to give notice and an opportunity to be heard if no record of the proceedings exists. (Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520 (Tanguilig) [].)
Even without knowledge of the proceedings, we find sufficient notice exists for the issue of waiver on the installment note's interest. Jaime cites Orange County Water Dist. v. City of Colton (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 642, 649 (Orange), which says that “parties... have a right to know by reference to the records before, or at least at the time of trial, the issues which can be determined in that particular action.” Jaime complains that because the issue of waiver on the installment note's interest was not mentioned in Gary's objections, Jaime had no warning to prepare that issue prior to trial. However, the trial court based its finding on testimony and records offered at trial, which we do not have. The issue of waiver was therefore clearly presented at trial, which is sufficient notice. (Ibid. [].)
For the jewelry and attorney fees issues, Jaime refers back to her due process argument against waiver on the installment note's interest. However, Jaime does not explain how Gary's objection that “[t]he Account fails to list or account for any of the jewelry that was property of the decedent Ruby E. Lopez” is anything but notice. Nor does Jaime show how the trial court failed to give Jaime “the opportunity to demonstrate the reasonableness” of the attorney fees. Because Jaime fails to develop these arguments, she waives these points. (Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852) (Benach) [“When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority we treat the point as waived.”].) Based on the foregoing, we reject Jaime's due process objections.
Jaime lodges other objections to the trial court's order regarding the installment note, the jewelry, and the attorney fees. We find Jaime's arguments lack merit.
Jaime argues that Ruby's mere failure to collect on the note is insufficient to constitute a waiver of interest on the note. “Whether or not a waiver has taken place is ordinarily a question of fact” and not a pure question of law. (Kawasho Internat., U.S.A. Inc. v. Lakewood Pipe Service Inc. (1983) 152 Cal.App.3d 785, 794; Tas-T-Nut Co. v. Continental Nut Co. (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 351, 355.) Because Jaime explicitly accepted the trial court's findings of fact, Jaime also accepted that Ruby waived the interest payable on the note.
Moreover Jaime cannot complain that the facts and testimony considered by the trial court were legally insufficient while simultaneously choosing to not provide the facts and testimony considered by the trial court. Finally, Jaime's citation to Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a) is inapposite because it applies only to interest on awarded damages, which as Gary correctly notes, “has no...
To continue reading
Request your trial