James E and Una B Lopez Trust

Case Number

25PR00255

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 08/11/2025 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Petition for Internal Affairs

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required. 

Due to the disjointed and confusing nature of the pleadings filed in this case,  the following is noted for the Court at the hearing:

On May 19, 2025, Brian Q. Lopez filed the initial pleading in this case.  That pleading was titled “Petition to Compel Trust Distribution, Trust Accounting, and Surcharge Trustee,” and cited, inter alia, Probate Code section 17200 for authority.  This petition did not identify any interested parties in the petition, and was not served on any interested party, as there is no Proof of Service of Notice of Hearing (DE-120) on file.  Notice of Hearing in a trust matter must be given on form DE-120, which is the mandatory Judicial Council form for notice in trust matters.

On June 23, 2025, Brian Q. Lopez filed what appears to be an amendment to the first pleading.  That pleading was titled “Amended Petition to Compel Trust Accounting and Confirm Vested Remainer Interest; Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, and cited Probate Code sections 16061, 16062, 17200, and 17211 for authority. This petition did not identify any interested parties in the petition, and was not served on any interested party, as there is no Proof of Service of Notice of Hearing (DE-120) on file.  Notice of Hearing in a trust matter must be given on form DE-120, which is the mandatory Judicial Council form for notice in trust matters.

On June 25, 2025, Brian Q. Lopez filed what appears to be an attempt to either amend the June 23, 2025 pleading, or clarify allegations made in that petition as a supplement.  That filing was titled “Notice of Revocation of Prior Demand For Distribution,” and did not cite any authority for the proposition of the filing itself; only citing the same authority as that cited in the June 23, 2025, amended pleading. This filing did not identify any interested parties in the petition, and was also not served on any interested party, as there is no Proof of Service of Notice of Hearing (DE-120) on file.  Notice of Hearing in a trust matter must be given on form DE-120, which is the mandatory Judicial Council form for notice in trust matters.

On July 9, 2025, Brian Q. Lopez filed a pleading that was titled “Second Amended Petition to Confirm Vested Remainder Interest and Compel Trust Accounting; For Attorney’s Fees and Costs,” citing Probate Code section 16060, 17200, and 17211.  This petition did not identify any interested parties, but was served on several parties.

All of the above pleadings requested the same general relief in their prayers for relief, which are summarized as follows:

1. Issue an order compelling the trustee to provide an accounting.
2. Make a finding that confirms Brian Q. Lopez has a “vested” interest in a $50,000 distribution from the trust.
3. Issue an order distributing that $50,000 to Brian Q. Lopez now, with interest.
4. Issue an order that prohibits the trustee from changing the trust to modify the distribution in a way that would prohibit Brian Q. Lopez from receiving that distribution.
5. Award Attorney’s fees and costs.

On August 1, 2025, Una B. Lopez filed a Response to the Second Amended pleading filed by Brian Q. Lopez. This Response operates as an objection, which places Mr. Lopez’s pleadings in this matter at issue, 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.)

The Court should strike the “Notice of Revocation of Prior Demand For Distribution,” because it was not filed in conformity with the law.

The June 25^th filing by Mr. Lopez cites no authority, and attempts to amend a previous pleading without following the mandatory guidelines for amendments in the Rules of Court at Rules 3 and 7.  Specifically, it is not serially labeled, not identified as an amendment or supplement, and does not point to any language in the previous pleadings that the filing is attempting to replace.

Thus, the June 25^th filing should be stricken from the record pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436(b).

The Court should Deny the petition without evidentiary hearing.

Despite the matter being at issue, the face of the Second Amended Petition reveals a fatal defect in the merits of the case. As outlined above, petitioner’s primary claim is that he is entitled to at least a $50,000 distribution from the trust, because he is a ‘vested’ beneficiary. The language of the trust states otherwise.

Article 3 of the trust contains plain language that requires the segregation of the trust into a Decedent’s sub-trust and Survivor’s sub-trust upon the death of the first settlor.  While the Decedent’s sub-trust is irrevocable once created (Trust, Art. 5, §5.3), section 3.5 of Article 3 plainly states that the surviving spouse has a right to the income of the Decedent’s sub-trust, and the principle of that sub-trust, if the principle of the Survivor’s trust is insufficient or exhausted.  Nowhere does the 2006 iteration of the trust contain language that vests the right to any principle or income of the Decedent’s sub-trust in anyone but the surviving spouse.

Further, section 4.3 of the 2006 iteration of the trust plainly states that the distribution of the Decedent’s sub-trust is entirely contingent on the death of the Surviving Spouse. This language means Petitioner cannot be held to have a vested right to anything in the trust, until the death of the Surviving Spouse…which has not yet occurred.  Since the first amendment to the trust does not change any of this language, all of Petitioner’s prayers for relief, except the prayer for accounting, cannot be granted, because they are all contingent on Petitioner’s interest being vested…which it is not.

As for the prayer for accounting, section 6.10 of Article 6 of the trust negates any right to an accounting, by making that right also contingent on the death of the surviving settlor.  (“During the lifetime of either Settlor, the Trustee shall account only to the Settlors or the survivor of them, and their written approval shall be final and conclusive in respect to transactions disclosed in the account as to all beneficiaries of the trust, including unborn and contingent beneficiaries.”)  This section also was not affected by the first amendment.

Therefore, the face of the pleadings disclose a legal defense to all claims by the Petitioner, and prayers for relief, and the Court should deny the petition with prejudice.  In addition to the denial of the petition, the Court should award attorney’s fees to the respondent pursuant to Probate Code section 17211(a), because the pleadings in this case appear to have been filed in bad faith, since the face of the pleadings disclose that Petitioner had no right to request any of the relief in the pleadings.