Michael M Stewart Trust vs Ian Alban Stewart, Sr et al

Case Number

22CV04219

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 10/27/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion: Summary Judgment

Tentative Ruling

The Michael M. Stewart Trust etc. v. Ian Alban Stewart Sr., et al.

Case No. 22CV04219

           

Hearing Date: October 27, 2025                                    

HEARING:              Plaintiff Norman Colavincenzo, Trustee of the Michael M. Stewart Trust’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Norman Colavincenzo, Trustee of the Michael M. Stewart Trust: Matthew Clarke, Kelley Clarke PC

                                    For Defendant Ian A. Stewart, Sr.: Self-Represented

                                    For Defendant Ian A. Stewart, Jr.: Self-Represented           

                                   

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication is denied.

Background:

This action commenced on October 27, 2022, by the filing of the original complaint by plaintiff Norman Colavincenzo, Trustee of the Michael M. Stewart Trust (plaintiff) against defendants Ian Alban Stewart, Sr. (Stewart Sr.). On March 10, 2023, plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint (FAC) adding Ian Alban Stewart, Jr. (Stewart Jr.) as a defendant. The FAC contains causes of action for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty – as to both defendants, (2) gross negligence – as to Stewart Sr.), (3) breach of contract – as to Stewart Sr., (4) unjust enrichment – as to Stewart Sr., and (5) fraudulent transfers – as to Stewart Sr.

This case involves two trusts of which plaintiff claims to be a beneficiary: The William Stewart and the Fred and Lilian Stewart Trust (collectively, the “Trust”). The FAC alleges that Stewart Sr. did numerous things in mismanagement of the Trust, improperly used Trust funds, wasted away Trust assets, committed fraud on behalf of the Trust, and breached the terms of a settlement agreement. Plaintiff alleges that Stewart Jr. became Trustee of the Trust on September 23, 2022, and continued the mismanagement of the Trust.

Stewart Sr. and Stewart Jr. each answered the FAC on May 3, 2023, with general denials and eight affirmative defenses. Among the affirmative defenses is the fifth affirmative defense of unclean hands.

Plaintiff now moves for summary adjudication of the first cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty and the third cause of action for breach of contract against Stewart Sr. only. (Note: Plaintiff improperly captions the motion as a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication. It is not a motion for summary judgment because it does not seek to dispose of the entire action.)

Stewart Sr. opposes the motion.

Analysis:

“A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)

“A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. The defendant or cross-defendant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)

“The plaintiff bears the initial burden to show there is no triable issue of material fact as to the defense and that he or she is entitled to judgment on the defense as a matter of law. In so doing, the plaintiff must negate an essential element of the defense, or establish the defendant does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence needed to support the defense.” (See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 889, 900, (See’s Candy).)

“If the plaintiff does not make this showing, “ ‘ “it is unnecessary to examine the [defendant’s] opposing evidence and the motion must be denied.” ’ ” [Citation.]  “ ‘ “However, if the moving papers establish a prima facie showing that justifies a [ruling] in the [plaintiff’s] favor, the burden then shifts to the [defendant] to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable material factual issue.” ’ ” [Citation.]” (See’s Candy, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 900.)

“Summary adjudication is a drastic remedy and any doubts about the propriety of summary adjudication must be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion.” (See’s Candy, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 900.)

“Both in the trial court and on appeal, the “ ‘court focuses on finding issues of fact; it does not resolve them. The court seeks to find contradictions in the evidence or inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence that raise a triable issue of material fact.’ ” [Citation.]” (Zamora v. Security Industry Specialists, Inc. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1, 29.)

“The trial court may not weigh the evidence in the manner of a fact finder to determine whose version is more likely true.” (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840.)

Here, plaintiff’s motion constitutes an attempt to have the court resolve disputed issues. It does not in any way tend to show that there are no triable issues of material fact. The motion actually affirmatively shows that there are many triable issues of fact.

            First Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty

“ ‘The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are: (1) existence of a fiduciary duty; (2) breach of the fiduciary duty; and (3) damage proximately caused by the breach. [Citation.] . . ..’ ” [Citation.]” (Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 788, 805.)

“Breach of duty is usually a fact issue for the jury.” (Harvey v. The Landing Homeowners Assn. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 809, 822.)

            Third Cause of Action for Breach of Contract

“The elements of a breach of contract claim are: “ ‘(1) existence of the contract; (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant's breach; and (4) damages to plaintiff as a result of the breach.’ ” [Citation.]” (Naranjo v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc. (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 408, 430.)

“As damages are an element of a breach of contract cause of action [citation], a plaintiff cannot obtain judgment on a breach of contract cause of action in an amount of damages to be determined later.” (Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 226, 241.)

“[T]here is no statutory basis for summary adjudication on the issue of breach.” (Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. 243.)

By way of plaintiff’s separate statement (SSUMF), his points and authorities, and his submitted evidence, plaintiff does nothing more than attempt to argue the merits of his case and seek damages. He does not prove each element of the causes of action, specifically with regard to breach or damages.

Even if the facts contained in plaintiff’s separate statement were all undisputed, plaintiff would still not have met his burden. But, as it is, many of the facts are reasonably disputed. As just the first example of a reasonably disputed fact contained in the SSUMFs:

SSUMF No. 7, claims that Rick Welch had no soil remediation experience. The fact is not supported by the evidence set forth. Plaintiff refers to deposition testimony (Exhibit 3) of Stewart Sr. as evidence of the fact. However, the cited pages and lines do not address the fact stated, and Stewart Sr. disputes that Welch lacked soil remediation experience.

The court has thoroughly reviewed the SSUMFs, along with the purported supporting evidence, and finds that not only are many of the facts reasonably disputed, many of the stated “facts” are taken completely out of context to the point of being misleading. Additionally, several of the facts (specifically regarding damages) are solely supported by the conclusory declaration of plaintiff. There are many factors that may go into the calculation of potential damages in this case that are not amenable to summary adjudication.  

Also, even if plaintiff were able to prove all the actions alleged in the SSUMFs to be true, there would be questions of fact for a jury as to whether those actions constituted a breach of fiduciary duty or a breach of the contract. Not every improper action or oversight constitutes a breach of duty. A good faith mistake does not constitute a breach. (see Frances T. Village Green Owners Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 490, 514.) “Where there is a fiduciary duty, breach of the duty is a question of fact.” (In re Marriage of Kamgar (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 136, 144.)

Further, there are triable issues of fact related to Stewart Sr.’s affirmative defenses, such as unclean hands, that preclude the granting of summary adjudication. “ ‘The doctrine [of unclean hands] demands that a plaintiff act fairly in the matter for which he seeks a remedy. He must come into court with clean hands, and keep them clean, or he will be denied relief, regardless of the merits of his claim. [Citations.] The defense is available in legal as well as equitable actions. [Citations.] Whether the doctrine of unclean hands applies is a question of fact.’ ” [Citation.]” (Michaels v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 512, 533.)

This case is simply not amenable to a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment or adjudication. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.