Rivera v. Rivera

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: MOORE, ACTING P. J.
• Docket Number: G063247
• Decision Date: 09 May 2024
• Parties: RYAN RIVERA, as Trustee, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CHRISTINA RIVERA, Defendant and Respondent.

1

RYAN RIVERA, as Trustee, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CHRISTINA RIVERA, Defendant and Respondent.

G063247

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division

May 9, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, No PRIN2001272 John G. Evans, Judge.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Lauren M Strickroth, Valerie E. Alter and Mariah A. Witt, for Plaintiff and Appellant Ryan Rivera, as Trustee.

Smith LC, John S. Clifford and Nathaniel Tarvin for Plaintiffs and Appellants Ryan Rivera and Chad Rivera.

La Quinta Law Group and Timothy L. Ewanyshyn, for Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

MOORE ACTING P. J.

Decedent Blas Rivera (decedent) sought to amend his estate plan while he was in the process of divorcing defendant Christina Rivera.^[1] He met with an attorney with the intent to disinherit Christina and give his entire estate to his sons from a prior marriage, plaintiffs Ryan and Chad Rivera (collectively, plaintiffs). A few weeks after this meeting, decedent executed an amendment to his trust (the 2020 amendment) prepared by his attorney. The 2020 amendment acknowledged the pending divorce case. But it stated that decedent was subject to the automatic restraining order found in Family Code section 2040 until his divorce was complete.^[2] As such, decedent was "making no changes that [would] affect the interests of [Christina] in the Trust." Decedent died a few weeks after signing the 2020 amendment, and Christina remained a beneficiary of his trust at his death.

Ryan filed a petition to reform decedent's estate plan to disinherit Christina. He claimed there was clear and convincing evidence decedent intended to disinherit Christina and give plaintiffs his entire estate. But, due to a drafting error, the 2020 amendment failed to effectuate this intent. Specifically, he asserted the attorney could have lawfully disinherited Christina while the divorce was pending by revoking decedent's trust. The trial court denied the petition. It found there was clear and convincing evidence that decedent intended to disinherit Christina when he met with the attorney. However, there was no evidence showing what was discussed at this meeting or what advice the attorney gave decedent. Nor was there any testimony showing the 2020 amendment was not what decedent had intended. Based on these findings, the court ruled it had no authority to reform the trust.

Plaintiffs appeal.^[3] Based on the trial court's finding that decedent intended to disinherit Christine at the meeting, they argue the court had legal authority to reform decedent's estate plan. We sympathize with plaintiffs. It seems clear decedent went to the meeting with the intent to disinherit Christina, but there is little evidence showing what transpired at the meeting between decedent and his attorney and no evidence of what transpired between them afterwards. Due to this lack of evidence, it is unclear whether the 2020 amendment contains a mistake or whether decedent chose not to disinherit Christina at that time for strategic reasons. Thus, reformation is not authorized under the authorities provided by plaintiffs, and we affirm the court's order.

I FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Decedent's marriage to Linda Rivera produced two children, plaintiffs Ryan and Chad. During his marriage to Linda, decedent established the Rivera Family Trust dated January 14, 1992 (the Rivera Family Trust). Linda died in 2003, and decedent married Christina in 2005.

After marrying Christina, decedent restated the Rivera Family trust in September 2006 (the 2006 restatement) and executed an accompanying pour-over will (decedent's will).

Section 2.04 of the 2006 restatement divides decedent's property into three separate trusts upon his death: Trust 1 - the Survivor's Trust, Trust 2 - the Decedent's Trust, and Trust 3 - the Marital Trust. Trust 1 would hold Christina's separate property and vested share of community property. Trusts 2 and 3 would hold decedent's separate property and his share of community property. The trustee was instructed to use the income and principal from Trust 2 for Christina's maintenance, support, education, and medical needs. Likewise, the trustee was directed to pay the income from Trust 3 to Christina in regular installments for the remainder of her life.

Sections 3.01 and 3.02 of the 2006 restatement appear to govern the distribution of decedent's remaining estate after Christina's death. Generally, these provisions call for decedent's remaining estate to be divided equally among plaintiffs.^[4]

Decedent amended the Rivera Family Trust again in 2007. He revised section 3.01 to provide a $500,000 gift to his brother, Eloy Rivera, before dividing the remaining estate into equal shares for plaintiffs.

Decedent and Christina separated in 2011, and decedent filed a divorce petition in 2012. Their divorce case was still pending on March 10, 2020, when decedent met with attorney Chris Carpenter with the intent of disinheriting Christina from the Rivera Family Trust and giving his entire estate to plaintiffs. While there is evidence showing what decedent intended at least during one point in the meeting, it is unclear what was specifically discussed at the meeting or whether any subsequent communication occurred between decedent and Carpenter.

On April 21, 2020, decedent executed a second amendment to the Rivera Family Trust (the 2020 amendment) prepared by Carpenter, which was three pages in length. Its first page states, decedent "acknowledges that he is in the process of dissolving his marriage to CHRISTINA MARIE RIVERA and that at the time this Amendment is being made, he is subject to the Automatic Restraining Order [(§ 2040)] which applies until the dissolution is complete. Therefore, [decedent] is making no changes that affect the interests of his wife in the [Rivera Family] Trust, but rather the [2020] Amendment is limited to the distribution under 3.01 and 3.02 of SECTION THREE."

The 2020 amendment named Ryan as cotrustee with decedent and as sole trustee upon decedent's death. The amended section 3.01 distributes (1) a $50,000 gift to Eloy, and (2) all personal assets to Ryan. The amended section 3.02 states, "The Trustee shall distribute the balance of the trust in equal shares to Settlor's children, outright and free of trust, if then living, and if not then living to their then living issue, by right of representation."

Two months later, in June 2020, decedent died while his divorce case with Christina was still pending. After his death, Ryan, as trustee of the Rivera Family Trust, filed a petition to reform, modify, or revoke the Rivera Family Trust to eliminate Christina as a beneficiary (the petition). The petition alleged that decedent met with his attorney in early 2020 to remove Christina as a beneficiary of the Rivera Family Trust, but the resulting 2020 amendment does not accomplish this intent.

The petition asked the trial court to effectuate decedent's intent through one of three methods. First, the court could reform the 2020 amendment to revoke the Rivera Family Trust and then provide a $10,000 gift to Eloy, decedent's personal property to Ryan, and the remainder of decedent's estate to plaintiffs. Second, the court could revoke the Rivera Family Trust and reform decedent's will to give $10,000 to Eloy and the remainder of decedent's estate to plaintiffs. Third, the court could revoke Trusts 2 and 3 and distribute their assets to plaintiffs.

An evidentiary hearing on the petition was held in September 2022. Ryan called two witnesses. The first, John Oliver, was decedent's financial planner. Among other things, Oliver testified he heard decedent tell Carpenter at the March 10, 2020 meeting that he thought his divorce would be final soon. He wanted Christina to get nothing and his sons to get his entire estate. Second, Rikki Rivera (no relation to decedent or plaintiffs) was a paralegal that worked with Carpenter.^[5] She testified that Carpenter's health and cognitive abilities were declining around the time he met with decedent. Christina did not call any witnesses.

The trial court later issued a statement of decision, which identified three issues to be decided:

"1. Has [Ryan], proved by clear and convincing evidence that it was [decedent's] intent when he met with attorney Chris Carpenter on March 10, 2020 to make sure Christina Rivera received nothing under his Trust and Will and that all of his assets go to his two sons, such that the Court should reform his Trust and Will under the authority found in Estate of Duke (2015) 61 Cal.4th 871 [(Duke)] and Ike v. Dolittle [sic] (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 51 [(Doolittle)], and their progeny in one of the three manners suggested?

"2. If so, how should the Court reform the [2020 amendment] . . . and/or his will, whether due to a mistake or drafting error, so that it reflects [decedent's] actual intent?

"3. What effect, if any, does Family Code section 2040 have on the Court's decision?"

The trial court denied the petition based on the first issue above, finding it lacked authority under Duke or Doolittle to reform the Rivera Family Trust or decedent's will. Due to this finding, it did not consider the second or third issues.

The trial court's ruling was based on several factual findings and observations. The court found "by clear and convincing evidence that it was [decedent's] intent, when he met with attorney Chris Carpenter on March 10, 2020, to make sure Christina Rivera received nothing under his Trust and that everything would go to his two sons." However "no evidence was presented about what happened at the meeting or whether Chris Carpenter advised [decedent] he could not affect the interests of...