Matter of Henry and Venice Dettamanti Family Trust

Case Number

23PR00280

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 03/19/2025 - 09:30

Nature of Proceedings

Status Report

Tentative Ruling

Aaron Feldman Attorney for Trustee

Tiffany M. Carrari, attorney for Linda Kopcrak and Christina Carrari

Mario Dettamanti c/o Katherine Dettamanti, Esq.

Angelina Dettamanti

Issue

Status Report

TENTATIVE RULINGS:

1. The Court reaffirms the Court's order to the Trustee to sell the house.
2. The Court reaffirms its prior directions to the marketing of the property, including a listing price below the appraised value as a marketing strategy.
3. The hearing on the issues is continued to June 18, 2025. at 9:00am.

Background

The case was last on calendar on 11/20/24 for hearing and continued to March 19, 2025 [120 days]. The 2 Petitions pending were also continued to 3/19/25. The Final Status Report wrapping up this litigation was indicated as due March 3, 2025; any objections due March 12, 2024.

At the last hearing on 11/20/24 the Court wrote: “On November 8, Trustee Elizabeth Watkins (by Attorney Aaron Feldman) filed a Status Report in which she requests a 90 day continuance. She reported that on May 22, 2024, the Court issued an Order that authorized various preliminary distributions, but which also set a further hearing for November 20, 2024. The distribution portion of the Court's Order was modified on June 3, 2024, but the other aspects of the Court's May 22nd Order remained in place. Petitioner was supposed to submit additional documentation for Final Account and Distribution on November 1, 2024. Petitioner was unable to meet that deadline, and on that basis requests that the Court continue this matter for 90 days. Final Distribution is linked to the sale of the Lompoc property. This Court conducted an Unlawful Detainer Trial in late September that resulted in a Judgment of Eviction. Following the Trial, Petitioner engaged the services of a real estate broker and there is a signed listing agreement for the sale of the property. In addition, there have been on-going discussions with counsel for Mario Dettamanti and counsel for the Carrari Trust looking to come to some agreement regarding final distribution and that would avoid potential sale of the Lompoc property. Those discussions have been on hold while Petitioner is still working with her CPA (Ron Levy) on the final tax liability for the sale of the shopping center. Mr. Levy recently returned from a lengthy vacation and is doing the final calculations. It is impossible currently to form a plan of distribution without knowing how much cash is on hand to distribute. It is also impossible to create a realistic plan for Final Distribution without knowing what will happen with the Lompoc property, either in terms of an agreed price for an in-kind distribution or the net sale proceeds if the property is sold. Trustee apologizes to the Court for not filing this Status Report on or before November 1st. Continuing this matter 90 days will benefit all parties in that it will allow time for completion of the tax calculation and allow parties to have further and more meaningful discussions about the possibility of an in-kind distribution for the Lompoc property and a broader final distribution agreement.

The Court’s Conclusions at the last hearing were: The 2 Petitions pending were examined by this court in detail in the 7/31/24 Minute Order. The court continued the Petitions to 11/20/24 to coincide with the Final Accounting ordered by this court on 7/31/24. No such accounting has been filed. Another continuance was not expected, and the Court is disappointed. But the request is reasonable.”

Current [Corrected] Status Report

Filed 3/12/25 by Aaron R. Feldman, Attorney for Petitioner Elisabeth Watkins; summarized: There is an issue with the listing of 3118 Pelham Drive in Lompoc that he thought had been resolved. After communication with an attorney, Jim O’Neil, in early February, he believed that he was satisfied with his representation about the Trust duty to sell the Lompoc property, and, therefore, that all of the threats contained in Angelina Dettamanti's letter to real estate agent Francine Silva were baseless; believed that following his communication with attorney O’Neil the property was being formally listed; further reinforced by communications with client indicating that potential buyers were looking at the property; but did not know, and did not question, was whether these potential buyers were being shown the property as part of a formal listing; never occurred to him that this was not being done formally.

The real issue now is how we can proceed in the face of such threats. Angelina Dettamanti is litigious; have been told that agents in the area won't touch this listing. A broker from outside of the area has expressed interest in the listing, but now the Trustee is worried about blowback. The property was appraised in 2023 for $700,000. A current (March 2025) market analysis shows, based on similar recent sales, that the property value is still $700,000. Agents often will list properties slightly below market value to generate multiple buyers. The Trustee feels that listing the property below $700,000 will generate another round of Petitions for Removal. The Trustee is also nervous that Lompoc is a smaller, more unique market and may not generate a bidding war the way sales in other larger urban areas might.

Another fear is that a potential sale below $700,000, even if listed on MLS and aggressively marketed, will result in demand for surcharges. In other words, the Trustee feels damned if she does and damned if she doesn't; met and conferred with Katherine Dettamanti and Tiffany Carrari concerning these issues and they could see that this presents problems. Katherine Dettamanti referred him to a Santa Barbara based real estate firm that has some connection with Lompoc and he anticipated receiving a second opinion on value and marketing strategy; also pleased to report that the parties are trying to work cooperatively on getting Lompoc property sold.

Options for the Trustee include:

A. Notice of Proposed Action: Now that he has a complete picture of the issues affecting the sale, the Trustee could send out a Notice of Proposed Action. However, an objection would require going to Court for approval, delaying any sale for 3-6 months minimum.

B. Petition for Instructions: The trustee could dispense with the NOPA, and simply file a Petition for Instructions based on the known objections raised by Angelina Dettamanti and the anticipated objections from other parties. That too will result in substantial delay.

Some of the objections raised by Angelina Dettamanti have already been ruled upon and decided. For example, the Court has already ruled that the Trustee is ordered to pay from Angelina Dettamanti's beneficial interest in the trust to the judgment creditors. A large portion of the letter to Francine Silva argues that such payment by the Trustee is in violation of the Trust, notwithstanding the Court's prior orders.

It would be helpful to the trustee and all parties if the Court can bluntly reaffirm the Court's order to the Trustee to sell the house so we can have final numbers for final distribution (and address the issues reserved from the First Account).

It would be helpful to the Trustee to have any objections to the marketing of the property, including a listing price below the appraised value as a marketing strategy, addressed at the Status Conference so that the Trustee and potential brokers can move forward with some confidence that a transaction won't be derailed by further litigation.

The Court’s Conclusions.

It makes imminent sense for the Court to bluntly reaffirm the Court's order to the Trustee to sell the house. Additionally, because there are such experienced parties involved and we have been through the issues, the Court does not expect any to have any objections to the marketing of the property, including a listing price below the appraised value as a marketing strategy, that need to be addressed at the Status Conference; but if there any objections they should be raised at the hearing so we can address them. The Court wants the Trustee and potential brokers to be able to move forward with some confidence that a transaction won't be derailed by further litigation.