Saunders v. Sankary

Filed 1/29/07 Saunders v. Sankary CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard G. Kolostian, Judge. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

Nina Ringgold for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Oldman, Cooley, Sallus, Gold, Birnberg & Coleman, Marshal A. Oldman and Mary‑Felicia Apanius for Defendant and Respondent Andr-Paul Summers-Chaussier, as Successor Trustee of the Summers Family Trust.

Oldman, Cooley, Sallus, Gold, Birnberg & Coleman, Marshal A. Oldman and Mary‑Felicia Apanius; Marc Edwards for Defendant and Respondent Ernest Gordon Saunders, as Successor Trustee of the Mary Louella Saunders Supplemental Needs Trust.

Myer J. Sankary, in pro. per.; Law Offices of Andrea Lynn Rice and Andrea Lynn Rice for Defendant and Respondent Myer J. Sankary, as Successor Trustee of the Aubry Family Revocable Trust.

I. INTRODUCTION

This appeal arises out of the Aubry Revocable Family Trust dated March 4, 1987 (the Aubry family trust). Nina Ringgold appeals from: a November 15, 2005 preliminary distribution order; a December 6, 2005 order removing Daniel Stubbs as trustee of the Mary Louella Saunders Supplemental Needs Trust (the supplemental needs trust) and appointing Ernest Gordon Saunders, Mary Louella Saunderss son and legal guardian, as trustee; a December 16, 2005 attorney withdrawal order; and a December 16, 2005 distribution order. We affirm those orders as to Ms. Ringgold. In addition, Ms. Ringgold purports to represent Ms. Saunders on appeal from the foregoing orders. However, for the reasons discussed below, we find Ms. Ringgold is not authorized to pursue this appeal on Ms. Saunderss behalf. As a result, the appeal is dismissed as to Ms. Saunders.

II. BACKGROUND

Mary Louise and Robert B. Aubry created the Aubry family trust in March 1987. Ms. Aubry died on October 3, 1995. Upon her death, Mr. Aubry became the sole trustee. Mr. Aubry died on September 26, 2002. The Aubry family trust was amended four timeson April 28, 1994, and after Ms. Aubrys death, on December 1, 1995, June 1, 1998, and April 20, 2000. The second and third amendments named Eunice M. Aubry-Summers^[1]and Ms. Ringgold as successor cotrustees if Mr. Aubry became unable or unwilling to serve as trustee. The fourth amendment named Ms. Aubry-Summers as the

sole successor trustee. On the same date he executed the fourth amendment to the Aubry family trust, April 20, 2000, Mr. Aubry also resigned as trustee.

On March 6, 2003, Ms. Ringgold and Ms. Saunders filed petitions under Probate Code section 17200, subdivision (a) to relieve Ms. Aubry-Summers as trustee. They alleged Ms. Aubry-Summers had: breached the Aubry family trust by concealing trust property and information; further breached the Aubry family trust by using undue influence to cause changes in the trust, including the fourth amendment naming her as sole successor trustee; and engaged in elder and dependent adult abuse with respect to Mr. Aubry. Ms. Ringgold and Ms. Saunders sought Ms. Aubry-Summerss immediate suspension and removal as trustee. Also, Ms. Ringgold and Ms. Saunders sought to require Ms. Aubry-Summers to account for trust property. They also requested trustee compensation.

On May 30, 2003, the probate court ordered Ms. Aubry-Summers suspended as trustee and named Ms. Saunders as the sole trustee. On October 14, 2003, the probate court named Ms. Ringgold and Ms. Saunders as interim co-trustees. Ms. Saunders suffered a stroke on March 5, 2004, and was thereafter incapacitated. On March 10, 2005, the probate court appointed Myer J. Sankary as trustee of the Aubry family trust. On April 8, 2005, the probate court approved the supplemental needs trust and appointed Ms. Ringgold as the trustee. On July 19, 2005, the Supreme Court of the State of New York appointed Ernest Gordon Saunders guardian of his mother, Mary Louella Saunders, an incapacitated person. The New York court issued a Commission of Guardian on October 29, 2005. Mr. Saunders was empowered to, among other things, retain attorneys . . . concerning the Incapacitated Persons property and affairs and to pay the same with Court approval.

On August 2, 2005, a majority of the beneficiaries attended a mediation and agreed to a settlement. A memorandum of understanding was prepared. It provided in part: 1. . . . [] a) In lieu of her interest under the Trust, Eunice [Aubry-]Summers (Eunice) agrees to receive twenty-five percent (25%) of the remainder of [the] Trust, which shall include 25% of all distributions to date; [] 2. Further conditions of the settlement are as follows: [] a) The parties shall execute a full and complete mutual releases [sic] to be prepared by counsel which release shall include an express waiver of Civil Code section 1542 thereby releasing Eunice and the other parties to this agreement from known and unknown claims against each other. [] b) The Trustee shall not distribute settlement funds until all parties to this agreement have executed said releases. [] c) In the event Nina Ringgold proceeds with litigation concerning the Trust, any amounts recovered shall become part of the Trust to be distributed to Eunice. [] d) The personal property in storage shall be distributed to the parties after inspection at a date and time to be agreed on. [] e) Myer Sankary, Esq., Trustee of the Trust, shall petition the court for (i) approval of this agreement, (ii) preliminary distribution of $100,000, and (iii) request authority to sell the Trusts real property. [] f) The accountings filed by Eunice shall be deemed settled and approved. [] g) The fees requested in the accountings filed by Eunice shall be subject [to] court approval. [] h) White Zuckerman et al. shall be instructed to terminate any further work related to the Trust or the accountings filed by Eunice. [] i) The parties shall cooperate concerning opposition to the account and fees of Nina Ringgold. [] j) Each party shall bear his/her/its/their own costs and attorneys fees. [] k) This agreement shall be deemed drafted by all parties with the advice of counsel for the purposes of its interpretation, sufficiency and enforcement. [] l) For purposes of this agreement, the remainder of the Trust shall be distributed in the following percentages: [] Eunice [Aubry-]Summers 25.00% [] Nina Ringgold 8.25% [] Issue of Milterine Hines 22.25% [] . . . [] Issue of Carrie Belle Williams 22.25% [] . . . [] Mary Louella Saunders 22.25% [] 3. This memorandum of understanding is intended to be an enforceable agreement pursuant to court ordered mediation and may be specifically enforced upon approval by the Superior Court in the action.

On August 18, 2005, Ms. Ringgold filed an ex parte application for appointment of a guardian ad litem for Ms. Saunders. The application alleged: prior to her stroke, Ms. Saunders had expressed grave concern about her assets and treatment and particularly specified that she had revoked a power of attorney she had provided her son, Gordon Saunders; Mr. Saunders had incurred substantial bills in his mothers name, which were to be paid through the supplemental needs trust, without conducting proper Medicaid planning; this matter was mediated on August 2, 2005; Ms. Saunders and Ms. Ringgold did not agree to the settlement; Mr. Saunders, who was in telephone contact with Ms. Ringgold, also did not agree to the settlement; further, Ms. Ringgold, Ms. Saunders, and Mr. Saunders were not signatories to the memorandum of understanding reached pursuant to the mediation; Mr. Saunders, who was appointed Ms. Saunderss guardian by a New York court, was not a lawyer and had not retained a California attorney in this matter; nor had he discharged Ms. Ringgold as Ms. Saunderss counsel; yet Mr. Saunders was negotiating a general release on Ms. Saunderss behalf; and Mr. Saunderss intention was to have Aubry family trust distributions paid to him rather than to the supplemental needs trust. Ms. Ringgolds August 18, 2005 application was denied.

The Aubry family trust beneficiaries, with the exception of Ms. Ringgold, entered into a December 12, 2005 settlement agreement. The settlement agreement was consistent with the August 2, 2005 memorandum of understanding. Mr. Saunders executed the agreement as legal guardian for Ms. Saunders on December 5, 2005. The parties agreed to resolve all existing disputes and claims. The parties specifically released Ms. Aubry-Summers from all claims against her.^[2] With respect to Ms. Ringgold, the settlement agreement provided, In the event Nina Ringgold does not agree to be bound by this Agreement, and proceeds with litigation concerning the [Aubry Family] Trust, and [Ms. Aubry-]Summers, the parties agree that any amounts recovered shall become part of the [Aubry Family] Trust to be distributed to [Ms. Aubry-]Summers. In addition, Mr. Saunders, as his mothers guardian, agreed to dismiss with prejudice and withdraw Ms. Saunderss breach of trust petition and other pleadings filed in this matter. Consistent with that provision, on January 3, 2006, Mr. Saunders, acting through an attorney, Marc Edwards, withdrew Ms. Saunderss March 6, 2003 breach of trust petition.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Dismissal of the Appeal as to Ms. Saunders

There is an apparent conflict in this proceeding insofar as Ms. Ringgold purports to represent Ms. Saunders as her attorney of record. Ms. Saunders has been adjudicated incompetent. Mr. Saunders represents his mother as her legal guardian and trustee of the supplemental needs trust. Mr. Saunders is represented by Mr. Edwards. Mr. Saunders asserts that he has discharged Ms. Ringgold as counsel for Ms. Saunders. He also asserts he never authorized Ms. Ringgold to bring this appeal on Ms. Saunderss behalf. Ms. Ringgold admits she never received permission from the guardian to pursue this appeal. Because Ms. Saunders, through her legal guardian, Mr. Saunders, has not authorized the pursuit of this appeal, it must be dismissed as to her. (Guardianship of Gilman (1944) 23 Cal.2d 862, 864; see In re Josiah Z. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 664, 680.)

B. Ms. Ringgolds Briefs

Ms. Ringgold raises numerous contentions on appeal in shotgun style and without appropriate record references, citations to legal authority, and argument. We agree with defendants that we should disregard deficiently presented arguments. Pursuant to well established authority, the failure to present argument with references to the record and citation to legal authority results in a forfeiture of any assertion that could have been raised. (People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1107, fn. 37; Building etc. Assn. v. Richardson (1936) 6 Cal.2d 90, 102; Estate of Randall (1924) 194 Cal. 725, 728-729; Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; City of Lincoln v. Barringer (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239-1240; Pringle v. La Chapelle (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1003-1004 & fn. 2; Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785; Reyes v. Kosha (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 451, 466, fn. 6; Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115-1116; Dills v. Redwoods Associates, Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 888, 890, fn. 1; Pimental v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 92, 94, fn. 1.) In addition, we will not address arguments raised for the first time on appeal. (People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 250; Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854, 865, fn. 4; People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1119, fn. 22; People v. Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140, 173; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1174; In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1138; Pool v. City of Oakland (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1051, 1065-1066; Estate of Leslie (1984) 37 Cal.3d 186, 202.) However, we deny Mr. Saunderss and Mr. Summers-Chaussiers monetary sanctions requests. They have not filed motions supported by declarations as required under former California Rules of Court, rule 27(e)(2). (See now, California Rules of Court, rule 8.276(e)(2) (eff. Jan. 1, 2007).)

C. The November 15, 2005 Distribution Order

On November 15, 2005, Mary-Felicia Apanius, counsel of record for Ms. Aubry-Summers, made an ex parte application for a $20,000 distribution of Aubry family trust funds. The funds were necessary to meet Ms. Aubry-Summerss emergency medical needs. In a separate application filed November 15, 2005, Linda Hines Wilson, an Aubry family trust beneficiary, sought an ex parte order for an emergency distribution to nine Aubry family trust beneficiaries, including Ms. Saunders, who were suffering financial harm. Ms. Apanius appeared at the November 15, 2005 ex parte hearing on Ms. Aubry-Summerss behalf. Myer J. Sankary, successor trustee, also appeared, as did Ms. Wilson. Ms. Ringgold did not attend the ex parte hearing. Mr. Sankary, the trustee, did not object to the requested distributions. The probate court approved the distributions except as to Ms. Saunders.

As noted above, Ms. Ringgold did not appear at the ex parte hearing. She raised no objection to the November 15, 2005 order in the probate court. As a result, any contention that could have been raised has been forfeited. (Cf., e.g., People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 250; Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 865, fn. 4; People v. Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1119, fn. 22; People v. Garceau, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 173; People v. McPeters, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 1174; In re Marriage of Arceneaux, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 1138; Pool v. City of Oakland, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 1065-1066; Estate of Leslie, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 202; see Estate of Bell (1943) 58 Cal.App.2d 333, 339.)

D. The December 6, 2005 Order Appointing Trustee

1. Overview

On December 6, 2005, Mr. Saunders, as legal guardian for his mother, Ms. Saunders, sought an ex parte order removing Ms. Ringgold as trustee of the supplemental needs trust and appointing himself as trustee. Mr. Edwards appeared at the hearing as Mr. Saunderss attorney. Mr. Sankary, successor trustee, was present. Ms. Ringgold appeared as counsel for Ms. Saunders. As it turned out, in late November 2005, Ms. Ringgold had resigned as trustee of the supplemental needs trust and had appointed Daniel G. Stubbs, a professional fiduciary, as successor trustee. The following occurred at the ex parte hearing: The Court:  . . .  [] Miss Ringgold among other things essentially says she is no longer the trustee but Mr. Stubbs, Daniel Stubbs is. [] Is that essentially what you are talking about? [] Mr. Edwards: Essentially what we are talking about, Your Honor, we just spoke with Mr. Stubbs this morning who has agreed that he did not understand what was going on and that the son of Mary Louella Saunders is agreeing to act as trustee. He is fine with that. He is happy to resign and have no involvement in this matter. [] Ms. Ringgold was aware that I was in the process of representing Ernest Gordon Saunders when she asked Mr. Stubbs to take over. [] He has had no previous involvement and is going to add an unnecessary layer of expense to this mater when Gordon Saunders, who is the legally appointed guardian in New York and the son -- [] The Court: I understand. [] Mr. Edwards: - - is the most appropriate person to serve as trustee and also to receive any and all distributions from the Aubry family trust as approved by this court in this matter. Ms. Ringgold argued: Mr. Edwards was attempting to appear for Mr. Saunders as Ms. Saunderss legal guardian without having signed a substitution of counsel; and it would be best to have a professional fiduciary (Mr. Stubbs) over Mr. Saunders as trustee [b]ecause the son has given instructions for payments to be made outside the supplemental needs trust which severely jeopardizes the amount of funds that would be available for her health and maintenance. In response, Mr. Edwards stated this was Mr. Saunders first appearance in these proceedings. Mr. Edwards explained that no attorney had previously appeared for Mr. Saunders; therefore no substitution of counsel was required. Mr. Edwards stated: The son is completely competent. He is acting reasonably. He has counsel in New York. Over Ms. Ringgolds objection, the probate court appointed Mr. Saunders as the trustee of the supplemental needs trust. As previously noted, we address only those contentions that were first raised in the probate court. (Cf., e.g., People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 250; Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 865, fn. 4; People v. Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1119, fn. 22; People v. Garceau, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 173; People v. McPeters, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 1174; In re Marriage of Arceneaux, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 1138; Pool v. City of Oakland, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 1065-1066; Estate of Leslie, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 202.)

2. Substitution of counsel

Ms. Ringgold argues a substitution of counsel was required. But there is no showing Mr. Saunders had made a prior appearance in this trust matter. Mr. Edwards was not appearing on Mr. Saunderss behalf in place of some other attorney. Nor was Mr. Edwards appearing for Mr. Saunders in pro per. Therefore, no substitution of attorney was required; there was no change of attorney of record. (Code Civ. Proc. 284; In re Jackson (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 773, 778; 7 Cal.Jur.3d (2003) Attorneys at Law, 201.) The Court of Appeal has held: The real purpose of the procedure provided by Code of Civil Procedure, section 284, is to have the record of representation clear so that the parties may be certain with whom they are authorized to deal. The function of the notice is that all parties may be apprised of what is happening . . . . (People ex rel. Dept. of Public Works v. Metrim Corp. (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 289, 294; see Board of Commissioners v. Younger (1865) 29 Cal. 147, 148.) Here, it was clear Mr. Edwards was making an initial appearance on Mr. Saunderss behalf.

3. Substitution of trustee

As for Mr. Saunderss substitution as trustee of the supplemental needs trust in place of Mr. Stubbs, we review the probate courts order for an abuse of discretion. (Estate of Gilmaker (1962) 57 Cal.2d 627, 633; see Estate of Bixby (1961) 55 Cal. 2d 819, 826.) The Supreme Court has held: The removal and substitution of a trustee is largely within the discretion of the trial court. (Jones v. Stubbs [(1955)] 136 Cal.App.2d 490, 501-502; Estate of Keyston, [(1951)] 102 Cal.App.2d 223, 228[, disapproved on another point in Estate of Schloss (1961) 56 Cal.2d 248, 256].) (Estate of Gilmaker, supra, 57 Cal.2d at p. 633.) The burden is on the complaining party to establish an abuse of discretion. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 566; Barnett v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 495, 527.) Ms. Ringgold asserts: The ex parte application indicated that Gordon Saunders believed he could do a better job. However, there was no indication that removal was required under the trust instrument. There was no indication of any statutory ground for removal under Probate Code [section] 15642[, subdivision (b)]. . . . In fact it was [Ms.] Ringgold who was attempting to act to get the necessary funds to [Ms.] Saunders by filing a writ petition seeking extraordinary relief. The lack of statutory grounds for Mr. Stubbss removal was not raised in the probate court. Moreover, Ms. Ringgold has not shown any abuse of discretion.

E. The December 16, 2005 Attorney Withdrawal Order

The probate court filed a December 16, 2005 order relieving Mr. Edwards as counsel for Marsha Williams Krum, an Aubry family trust beneficiary. Ms. Ringgold contends the probate court abused its discretion in entering the order. Ms. Ringgold has failed to explain why she has standing to challenge the December 16, 2005 withdrawal order. Further, Ms. Ringgold has not shown that Mr. Edwards withdrawal as counsel for Ms. Krum worked an injustice upon any litigant. (See Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1132; Linn v. Superior Court (1926) 79 Cal.App. 721, 725.) Even if Ms. Ringgold had standing, she has not shown she raised any objection to the order in the probate court. As a result, any argument that could have been raised has been forfeited. (Cf., e.g., People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 250; Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 865, fn. 4; People v. Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1119, fn. 22; People v. Garceau, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 173; People v. McPeters, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 1174; In re Marriage of Arceneaux, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 1138; Pool v. City of Oakland, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 1065-1066; Estate of Leslie, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 202.) In any event, on November 29, 2005, prior to the hearing, a substitution of attorney was filed whereby Ms. Krum consented to her attorneys withdrawal.

. 4. The December 16, 2005 Distribution Order

The successor trustee, Mr. Sankary, filed a petition to determine distribution rights and for instructions as to the sale of real property on October 26, 2005. The successor trustee and the beneficiaries had attended an August 2, 2005 mediation and had agreed, with the exception of Ms. Ringgold, to a final settlement of their disputes. Ms. Ringgold was present at the mediation but did not sign the settlement agreement. Ms. Saunders was not present at the mediation, but her son and guardian, Mr. Saunders, had approved the settlement on her behalf. Mr. Sankary declared: As a compromise, Eunice [Aubry-]Summers agreed to accept 25 [percent] of the remainder of the Trust Assets . . . instead of approximately 44 [percent] of the estate to which she claims [she] would have been entitled . . . . Hence, substantial consideration was given to resolve all claims against [Ms.] [Aubry-]Summers as alleged in the Petitions filed by Nina Ringgold and allegedly filed by Mary Saunders. On December 16, 2005, the probate court entered an order determining distribution rights, and for instructions as to the sale of real property. Distribution was ordered in accordance with the settlement agreement. The probate court ordered: [1.] The Settlement Agreement is approved and distribution rights shall be in accordance with the allocation set forth in the Agreement . . . . [] 2. [The successor trustee] is authorized to retain the services of . . . real estate brokers at a commission of 5 [percent] to list and sell the Property legally described herein at its highest and best price subject to court approval. [] 3. [The successor trustee] is instructed to distribute funds of Mary Louella Saunders, including her share of the $80,000.00 (in the amount of $17,800.00) to Ernest Gordon Saunders, Trustee of the Mary Louella Saunders Supplemental Needs Trust and is authorized to pay. [] 4. [The successor trustee] shall pay to Nina Ringgold her share of the $80,000.00 in the sum of $6,600.00 upon execution of receipt of said funds by Nina Ringgold. [] 5. The following payments by [the successor trustee] to the following beneficiaries [are] hereby ratified: . . . . [] 6. Nina Ringgold is ordered to cooperate and forthwith turn[]over to [the successor trustee] within 48 hours [all] documents and keys necessary to transfer possession of the personal property of the decedents . . . now located in the Public Storage facility. Myer Sankary is authorized to release the personal property to such beneficiaries of Robert and Mary Aubry as are entitled to said property and in accordance with their agreement. [] 7. [The successor trustee] is authorized to make partial payment of trustees fees in the sum of $10,000 and to pay [the successor trustee] a monthly fee of $750.00 per month for the next 10 months or until the estate is closed.

Ms. Ringgold appeared at the December 16, 2005 hearing and objected as follows: she did not receive notice of the hearing; the proof of service of notice reflected an old address; she had filed a notice of change of address over three months ago; there was no competent evidence Ms. Saunders has approved, has signed a settlement agreement that has been reviewed by her attorney of record, and there is nothing before this court that indicates that she has signed it; there was nothing signed by Ms. Saunderss legal guardian indicating she was releasing her elder abuse and contract breach claims; it would be prejudicial to Ms. Saunders and Ms. Ringgold to allow the trustee to liquidate the Aubry family trusts major assets prior to determining their pending petitions; it was prejudicial for the trustee to request fees and costs when there was over $200,000 that had not been paid to Ms. Ringgold or to Ms. Saunders; it was unreasonable to allow the Aubry family trust to incur a real estate commission expense; a guardian ad litem should be appointed for Ms. Saunders to indicate . . . someone has reviewed this [Aubry family] trust and indicated that she is authorizing, her guardian is authorizing a settlement on her behalf; and Ms. Aubry-Summerss share should not be paid while Ms. Ringgold and Ms. Saunders are seeking a constructive trust as to more funds.

On appeal, Ms. Ringgold argues the petition was not served at her correct address. The petition to determine distribution rights was served by mail on Ms. Ringgold at 17901 Malden Street in Northridge, her office location, on October 14, 2005. Two days earlier, on October 12, 2005, Ms. Ringgold filed a Notice of Change of Mailing Address and Facsim[i]le Number in the trial court. The attached proof of service states, On October 10, 2005, I served by E-mail and United States Mail the following: Notice of Change of Mailing Address and Fax. The notice stated that her office location address remained unchanged. But the notice stated Ms. Ringgolds mailing address was changed to a Northridge post office box. Ms. Ringgold does not assert she never received the petition mailed to her office. Nor does she claim she was prejudiced by the fact the petition was mailed to her office location rather than her post office box. She cites no legal authority for the proposition the order should be reversed for lack of notice under these circumstances. Indeed, she states the underlying facts but offers no legal argument at all. Thus, the notice issue is forfeited. (People v. Barnett, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 1107, fn. 37; Building etc. Assn. v. Richardson, supra, 6 Cal.2d at p. 102; Estate of Randall, supra, 194 Cal. at pp. 728-729; Nwosu v. Uba, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1246-1247; City of Lincoln v. Barringer, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1239-1240; Pringle v. La Chapelle, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1003-1004 & fn. 2; Badie v. Bank of America, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at pp. 784-785; Reyes v. Kosha, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 466, fn. 6; Guthrey v. State of California, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1115-1116; Dills v. Redwoods Associates, Ltd., supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 890, fn. 1; Pimental v. Safeway Stores, Inc., supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at p. 94, fn. 1.)

Also, Ms. Ringgold contends the probate court had no jurisdiction to enter the December 16, 2005 order because Ms. Saunders had not agreed to a settlement of the matter. Ms. Ringgold relies upon Carlson v. Eassa (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 684, 692-697. In Carlson, a deputy district attorney settled a mothers child support arrearages claim. This was accomplished without the mothers consent and a stipulated judgment was entered in the trial court. The Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District held the judgment was void. (Id. at p. 697.) As noted above, here, the Aubry family trust beneficiaries other than Ms. Ringgold entered into a settlement agreement following court ordered mediation. Ms. Ringgold was present at the mediation but did not sign the settlement agreement. Ms. Saunders, who is disabled and subject to a guardianship, was not present at the mediation. However, Mr. Saunders, Ms. Saunderss son and legal guardian, accepted the settlement on her behalf. Mr. Saunderss attorney, Mr. Edwards, was present at the hearing and offered no objection. With court approval, Mr. Saunders was authorized to settle this matter on his mothers behalf, as her guardian. (Prob. Code,  2501, subd. (a); 14 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Wills and Probate,  1013, p. 1129.) Further, Mr. Sankary, as trustee, had the power to settle claims against the Aubry family trust by compromise. (Prob. Code, 16242, subd. (b); Rest. 2d Trusts 192; see Pillsbury v. Karmgard (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 743, 762.)

Moreover, Ms. Ringgold contends it was an abuse of discretion to deny her renewed request for appointment of a guardian ad litem for Ms. Saunders. Ms. Ringgold reasons, [T]he court was making a substantial determination regarding the interest of [Ms.] Saunders who is clearly a primary beneficiary of the trust . . . . However, as discussed above, Ms. Ringgold was not authorized to represent Ms. Saunders in this appeal. Further, Mr. Saunders, as legal guardian, approved the settlement on his mothers behalf. There is no showing of an abuse of discretion.

Finally, Ms. Ringgold argues the probate court should not have authorized the partial payment of trustees fees. Whether to allow a trustees fee request rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. (Estate of McLaughlin (1954) 43 Cal.2d 462, 465; Estate of McLellan (1936) 8 Cal.2d 49, 55; Estate of Gump (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 582, 597.) Ms. Ringgold contends it was an abuse of discretion to authorize a partial payment of trustees fees and payment of a monthly trustees fee because it was somehow prejudicial to her own such claim. Also, Ms. Ringgold asserts the monthly fee payment would be prejudicial to Ms. Saunders. Ms. Saunderss March 6, 2003 petition, which included a trustee fee request, has been withdrawn. It does not appear Ms. Ringgold has ever made a properly supported request for specific trustee fees. Moreover, Ms. Ringgold has not made any showing the probate courts order in regard to Mr. Sankarys fees was somehow prejudicial to her. No manifest abuse of discretion has been shown. Based on the foregoing, we note that even if the appeal were not dismissed as to Ms. Saunders, it would be affirmed as to her.

IV. DISPOSITION

The appeal of plaintiff, Mary Louella Saunders, is dismissed. The orders under review are affirmed as to plaintiff, Nina Ringgold. Defendants, Myer J. Sankary, as Successor Trustee of the Aubry Family Revocable Trust, Andr-Paul Summers-Chaussier, as successor trustee of the Summers Family Trust, and Ernest Gordon Saunders, as guardian of Mary Louella Saunders and as successor trustee of the Mary Louella Saunders Supplemental Needs Trust, are to recover their costs on appeal from plaintiff, Ms. Ringgold. No costs are imposed against Mary Louella Saunders.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TURNER, P. J.

We concur:

ARMSTRONG, J.

BOLAND, J.^*

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.

^[1] Ms. Aubry-Summers passed away on November 17, 2005. She is represented in this matter by Andr-Paul Summers-Chaussier, her son and the successor trustee of the Summers Family Trust.

^[2] The parties broadly released Ms. Aubry-Summers from any and all suits, causes of action, demands, claims, charges, complaints, obligations, liabilities, costs, losses, damages, injuries, rights, judgments, attorneys fees, expenses and all other legal responsibilities in any form whatsoever in law or in equity, whether known or unknown, and whether suspected or unsuspected, arising from or related to disputes concerning the Aubry family trust and the [pleadings filed in this matter].

^* Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.