Example: quiz answers

COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA

B259534. IN THE. COURT OF APPEAL . STATE OF CALIFORNIA . SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT. Division Six _____. In Re JOHN A. PATTON. _____. KIM BUTLER, et al., Petitioners & Respondents, vs. JOHN F. LEBOUEF, Respondent & Appellant. _____. APPEAL from the Superior COURT of CALIFORNIA , County of Santa Barbara The Hon. Colleen Sterne (case no. 1383524). _____. RESPONDENTS' BRIEF. _____. John Derrick, SBN 223308. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN DERRICK, apc 21 E. Pedregosa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101. 805 284 1660. Attorney for Respondents KIM BUTLER, et al. TABLE OF CONTENTS. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 5. INTRODUCTION 9. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 10. STATEMENT OF FACTS 11. (a) John Patton 11. (b) John LeBouef 11. (c) LeBouef's marriage to Irene Grant 12. (d) LeBoeuf's partnership with Mark Krajewski 14. (e) LeBouef's handling of Audrey Cook's trust 16.

b259534 in the court of appeal state of california second appellate district division six _____ in re

Tags:

  States, Court, California, Appeal, Court of appeal state of california

Information

Domain:

Source:

Link to this page:

Please notify us if you found a problem with this document:

Other abuse

Transcription of COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA

1 B259534. IN THE. COURT OF APPEAL . STATE OF CALIFORNIA . SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT. Division Six _____. In Re JOHN A. PATTON. _____. KIM BUTLER, et al., Petitioners & Respondents, vs. JOHN F. LEBOUEF, Respondent & Appellant. _____. APPEAL from the Superior COURT of CALIFORNIA , County of Santa Barbara The Hon. Colleen Sterne (case no. 1383524). _____. RESPONDENTS' BRIEF. _____. John Derrick, SBN 223308. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN DERRICK, apc 21 E. Pedregosa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101. 805 284 1660. Attorney for Respondents KIM BUTLER, et al. TABLE OF CONTENTS. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 5. INTRODUCTION 9. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 10. STATEMENT OF FACTS 11. (a) John Patton 11. (b) John LeBouef 11. (c) LeBouef's marriage to Irene Grant 12. (d) LeBoeuf's partnership with Mark Krajewski 14. (e) LeBouef's handling of Audrey Cook's trust 16.

2 (f) Patton's debilitating alcoholism, depression and illnesses after Duval's death 18. (g) LeBouef's increasing visits to Santa Barbara following Duval's death 20. (h) Kim Butler, Julie Black, and Carol Archer 21. (i) Butler's interactions with Patton after Duval's death 22. (j) Patton's 1994 and 2000 wills 23. (k) Patton's purported 2006 will and trust 23. (l) Evidence of a change made to the testamentary documents after December 2006 28. (m) Expert testimony about the testamentary and related documents 28. !2. (n) Patton's statements to others about his intentions 31. (o) The day of Patton's death 32. (p) The alleged burglary after Patton's death 34. ARGUMENT 36. 1. The COURT Did Not Abuse its Discretion in Considering Evidence About the Grant and Cook Trusts 36. Evidence about the Grant and Cook trust was admissible under Evidence Code section 1101 36.

3 The trial COURT did not abuse its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 39. To win the argument, LeBouef needs to show that every reasonable Superior COURT judge would have ruled differently 42. Even if there were error, it was harmless 43. 2. Substantial Evidence Supports the COURT 's Findings 45. Since LeBouef has not furnished a full record of the evidence, the sufficiency must be presumed 45. The incomplete record contains sufficient evidence to support the COURT 's findings 46. There was no certificate of independent review 53. !3. It is irrelevant that Patton apparently intended to make some testamentary gift to LeBouef 53. 3. There Was No Omitted Finding in the Statement of Decision and any Claim to the Contrary has Anyway Been Forfeited 54. 4. Respondents Were Entitled to Recover Reasonable Attorney Fees According to Statute 56.

4 A fee award could be made against LeBouef as a transcriber as well as a drafter 56. Even if LeBouef did not transcribe the will and trust, he was a transcriber of the beneficiary forms, which are themselves subject to Probate Code section 21380 57. The fees provision in Probate Code section 21380 does apply to drafters 59. 5. The COURT Did Not Abuse its Discretion in the Amount of Fees Awarded 61. 6. The COURT Did Not Abuse its Discretion in Denying an Award to LeBouef of Trustee and Attorney Fees 63. CONCLUSION 65 !4. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. CASES. Bancomer, S. A. v. Superior COURT (1996) 44 1450 43. Bowers v. Bernards (1984) 150 870 48. CALIFORNIA Youth Authority v. STATE Personnel Bd. (2002) 104 575 48. Children's Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Bonta (2002) 97 740 62. Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 1315 62. Davis v.

5 Michigan Dept. of Treasury (1989) 489 803 59-60. Denham v. Superior COURT (1970) 2 557 46. Estate of Zalud (1972) 27 945 37, 41-43. Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors Inc. (2007) 150 42 55. Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 140 61-62. In re Jose M. (1994) 21 1470 41. In re Marriage of Sinks (1988) 204 586 42. !5. In re Marriage of Wight (1989) 215 1590 61. In re McLaughlin's Estate (1954) 43 462 64. In re Spencer's Estate (1936) 18 220 64. In re Vokal's Estate (1953) 121 252 64. Katelaris v. County of Orange (2001) 92 1211 42, 55. Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 1242 46. Nichols v. City of Taft (2007) 155 1233 62. People v. Blakeslee (1969) 2 831 52. People v. Branch (2001) 91 27 40. People v. Doolin (2009) 45 390 40. People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 380 36, 40. People v. Filson (1994) 22 1841 40. People v.

6 Hassan (2008) 168 1306 12. !6. People v. Her (2013) 216 977 42. People v. Lenart (2004) 32 1107 39. People v. Martinez (1995) 11 434 40. People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 1 48. People v. Spector (2011) 194 1335 39. People v. Watson (1956) 42 818 43. People v. Zambrano (2007) 41 1082 39-40. People v. Zepeda (2008) 167 25 39. Rice v. Clark (2002) 28 89 47, 58. Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing Cases (2009) 171 495 46. Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 624 48. STATUTES. Civil Code section 3517 64. Code of Civil Procedure section 634 55. Evidence Code section 352 39-41. !7. Evidence Code section 1101 36-37, 39-41. Probate Code section 45 58. Probate Code section 15681 63. Probate Code section 17200 10. Probate Code section 21380 passim Probate Code section 21384 53, 59. West's Ann. Cal. Prob. Code (2010). 21350 61.

7 West's Ann. Cal. Prob. Code (2010). 21351 61. West's Ann. Cal. Prob. Code 21380 60. CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT . Rule 45. Rule 45. OTHER AUTHORITY. Oxford American Dictionary (3rd Ed.) 43, 58. !8. INTRODUCTION. The Superior COURT found that appellant a lawyer . drafted or transcribed testamentary instruments for an elderly person, making himself the main beneficiary. Under Probate Code section 21380, this created a presumption of fraud or undue influence. The COURT also found that the lawyer, in an effort to salvage the inheritance, lied his way through trial. The facts of this case may be interesting compared with many (although one wouldn't glean that from the highly one- sided account in appellant's opening brief). Some border on the bizarre. But when it comes to the law, this APPEAL is as dull as they come. Put simply, there is no real issue of law in dispute as to the validity of the instruments.

8 Appellant's endless string citations to non-dispositive, undisputed points of law do not change that. The issue turns on the facts. Appellant relies on arguing that a different result could have been reached by believing witnesses whose testimony the trial COURT did not find credible. That is not a plausible appellate argument. As for the other issues raised, there was a statutory basis for the attorney fee award, the amount awarded was reasonable, and appellant's contention that the COURT abused its discretion in not ordering him to be compensated for his expenses and time as an imposter trustee is absurd. !9. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. In October 2011, respondents1 Kim Butler and Julie Black2 filed a petition under Probate Code section 17200. seeking to invalidate the will and trust of the late John Patton and the removal of appellant John LeBouef as successor trustee.

9 (1 AA 1.) An amended petition added respondent Carol Archer to the action. (5 AA 1481.). The matter proceeded to a five-week bench trial early in 2014 along with related petitions dealing with Patton's estate. (See 7 AA 2088, 2090.) After the conclusion, the COURT issued a statement of decision favoring the petition. (7 AA 2088, 8 AA. 2145.) A supplemental statement of decision approved a request for statutory attorney fees under Probate Code section 21380. (8 AA 2173, 2175.). On July 29, 2014, the COURT entered a judgment granting the petition and awarding attorney fees in an amount to be determined. (8 AA 2219-2222.) Notice of entry was served on August 4, 2014. (8 AA 2225.) On October 14, 2014, LeBouef filed a notice of APPEAL . (8 AA 2229.). On November 14, 2014, following a noticed motion, the COURT entered a supplemental judgment awarding fees of $1,256,971 as well as costs.

10 (8 AA 2232, 9 AA 2437-2438.). 1 The brief will refer to the respondents on APPEAL collectively as respondents, although they were the petitioners below. 2 The caption on appellant's opening brief incorrectly refers to Kim Black and Julie Butler.. !10. LeBouef subsequently petitioned the COURT for reimbursement of legal expenses incurred while he was trustee and before being removed as well as for trustee fees. (9 RT. 2443.) On March 25, 2015, the COURT issued an order denying those requests. (9 RT 2554-2555.) On April 23, 2015, LeBouef appealed that order. (9 AA 2558.) This COURT consolidated the two appeals. STATEMENT OF FACTS. (a) John Patton John Patton was an accomplished and renowned interior designer. (1 RT 248; 3 RT 645-646.) He lived in Santa Barbara at 1424 San Miguel. (1 RT 224, 248.) He also owned two other houses in Santa Barbara and had substantial liquid assets.


Related search queries