Klein v. Klein

Filed 1/17/07  Klein v. Klein CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 TWO

            APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. 

Thomas W. Stoever, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Bailey & Partners and Keith A. Lovendosky for Plaintiff and Appellant.

            Freeman, Freeman & Smiley, Stephen M. Lowe and Jared A. Barry for Defendants and Respondents.

_________________________

            Mary Klein (Mary) is the widow of Alex Klein (Klein), and Alvin Klein (Alvin) and Mark Klein (Mark) are Klein's sons from a prior marriage.  In a petition to determine the existence and terms of the Alex Klein Revised Trust (trust), Mary claimed that Klein had been unduly influenced to amend his trust on July 5, 1999, and leave her without support.  Specifically, the amendment to the trust established that she had no interest in the eight-unit apartment building (building) that Klein and she relied upon as their sole means of income during their marriage.  Mary eventually entered into a settlement agreement with Alvin and Mark.  But she later claimed that the probate court's approval of the settlement agreement was the result of extrinsic fraud that prevented her from presenting her whole case.  Mary petitioned the probate court to vacate the settlement agreement and reinstate her petition to determine the existence and terms of the trust.  According to Mary, the extrinsic fraud was a forged quitclaim deed that bore her signature and purported to convey her interest in the building to the trust.  The effect of the forged quitclaim deed was to give the building to Alvin and Mark.  She contends that she executed the settlement agreement only because she believed the quitclaim deed was valid.  She further contends that she did not discover that the quitclaim deed was forged until many years after she agreed to settle her claim.  The petition to vacate was denied, and Mary appealed. 

            Having found no error, we affirm.

FACTS

            Background

            Mary and Klein were wed in May 1984.  Klein amended the trust to give her a life estate in trust assets.

            In late 1988, Klein used the building as collateral to secure a $475,000 loan for the benefit of Alvin's business ventures.  When the loan came due in 1994, it was refinanced by a $405,000 loan by another lender in exchange for a deed of trust on the building.  On July 15, 1994, as trustee of the trust, Klein signed a quitclaim deed transferring the building to Mary and himself as joint tenants.  He did the same with respect to the residence they had been living in (residence).

            The July 5, 1999 amendment to the trust provided that upon Klein's death, the trust income would be distributed to Klein's grandchildren.  In particular, it stated:  â€