Matter of The Plumlee Trust

Case Number

20PR00039

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 12/03/2025 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Petition for Attorney's Fees

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required. 

On December 22, 2023, Kenneth S. Plumlee filed a Petition to compel an accounting from the trustee pursuant to Probate Code section 17200.  That petition was not opposed.

On June 18, 2024, Nathan Shaw, in his capacity as trustee, filed a Petition for Approval of the First Accounting.  That petition received written objection by Kenneth S. Plumlee on July 9, 2024, placing this matter at issue and requiring evidentiary hearing to resolve. (In re Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667, 676; Conservatorship of Farrant (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 370, 377.)  However, Nathan Shaw did not oppose the objection, nor file any similar contest.

Before the Court could set the evidentiary hearing, Nathan Shaw died in February of 2025.  The death of Mr. Shaw created a vacancy in the trustee position.  On July 2, 2025, this Court appointed Shelly McConnell as the successor trustee of the subject trust, and set this hearing to review the status of the accounting and winding down of the trust.

On August 6, 2025, the accounting came on for a status hearing. At that hearing, it is clear from the minute order that the Accounting was denied.

If a beneficiary contests the trustee’s account and the court determines that the trustee’s opposition to the contest was without reasonable cause and in bad faith, the court may award the contestant the costs of the contestant and other expenses and costs of litigation, including attorney’s fees, incurred to contest the account. The amount awarded shall be a charge against the compensation or other interest of the trustee in the trust. The trustee shall be personally liable and on the bond, if any, for any amount that remains unsatisfied.

(Prob. Code, §17211(b).)

In this case, the Court would find it difficult to determine that the trustee opposed the opposition to the accounting.  Even though the accounting was poor, and revealed malfeasance, it was done without contest.  Thus, the Court cannot likely find that the trustee contested the account in bad faith under section 17211.

Petitioner must come prepared to further discuss the substantial benefit doctrine outlined in Smith v. Szeyller (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 450, 460. (“But under the substantial benefit exception, the trial court may exercise its “equitable discretion ... [to] determine[ ] whether the interests of justice require those who received a benefit to contribute to the legal expenses of those who secured the benefit.”.)Appearances:

The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference.

Meeting ID: 161 956 1423

Passcode: 137305