Estate of Rosenwasser
Filed 4/20/06 Estate of Rosenwasser CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| Estate of HERMAN ROSENWASSER, Deceased. | B171990 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. P473636) |
| KAREN ENGLE-GROGAN, as Successor Trustee, etc., et al., Petitioners and Respondents, v. JOYCE T. SUSSMAN, Individually and as Successor Trustee, etc., Objector and Appellant. |
APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Martha Goldin, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions; appeal from order dismissed.
Goldfarb, Sturman & Averbach, Steven L. Crane and Mark J. Phillips for Objector and Appellant.
Weinstock, Manion, Reisman, Shore & Neumann, Blake Alexandra Rummel; Law Offices of Randel L. Ledesma and Randel L. Ledesma for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
Appellant Joyce Sussman appeals from the judgment which, except for payment to her of $1,166.76, was in favor of respondents Karen Engle-Grogan (now Engle-Potter) and Teri Potter and arose from the administration of a residual trust by Betty Rosenwasser, the deceased mother of appellant, and the trust account rendered by appellant.[1][1]
Appellant contends: (1) the doctrine of laches bars respondents' attack on Betty's discretionary conduct as trustee; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the findings that Betty breached her fiduciary duty by: (a) selling a parcel of real property at below fair market value (FMV), (b) failing to invest for growth the sale proceeds, and (c) leasing another parcel at below fair rental value (FRV); and (3) the evidence also is insufficient to support the award of damages based on this lease.
Appellant further contends: (4) the probate court's finding that $154,656 was the Residual Trust's total cash on hand must be vacated, because the probate court erred in imputing a $43,839 depreciation reserve and charging a $32,759 lease commission against the income interest; and (5) the probate court erred in awarding any attorney and expert fees to respondents, and, to the extent any fees were proper, by failing to separate out those fees not attributable to the account issues.
Her final contention is: (6) the judgment must be amended to identify appellant's liability solely in her capacity â€
