Cumming v. Cumming CA4/2
As to the second contention, the record is sufficient to meet Steven’s burden of demonstrating prejudice. Prejudice is shown if there is a reasonable chance that the outcome would have been more favorable to the appellant in the absence of the error. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.) A “reasonable chance” means merely “more than an abstract possibility.” (College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 715.) The record on appeal includes a forensic accounting, filed with the trial court on February 2, 2015, by the interim successor trustee appointed by the court, which appears to state that the trust estate was then valued at approximately $1.5 million. This is sufficient to show a reasonable chance that Steven’s one-third share of the trust estate and of any other assets Lois may have possessed outside of the trust would exceed the amount of the surcharge. As William states in his answer to the second petition for rehearing, the actual va
Comments on Cumming v. Cumming CA4/2