Newman v. Locke
Filed 4/17/06 Newman v. Locke CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 SEVEN
| ARTHUR NEWMAN, Petitioner and Appellant, v. DIANA LOCKE, Defendant and Appellant. | B178413 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BP079340) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Brett C. Klein, Judge. Affirmed.
Holland & Knight, Bruce S. Ross, Sean K. Higgins and Vivian Lee for Petitioner and Appellant.
Richard E. Hodge and William E. Johnson for Defendant and Appellant.
_______________________
Diana Locke and Arthur Newman appeal from trial court judgments pertaining to the trust established by their mother, Ida Newman. Locke appeals the court's rulings that the Third Amendment to the trust is valid and enforceable and that the Fifth Amendment to the trust is invalid and unenforceable. Arthur Newman argues on appeal that the trial court should not have granted a judgment against him on his elder abuse case at the close of his case-in-chief. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Ida Newman established a revocable trust in 1985 providing for the distribution of her estate between her two children, Diana Locke and Arthur Newman.[1] Over the remaining years of her life, the trust was amended several times. The two salient amendments are the Third Amendment and the Fifth Amendment.
On November 30, 1995, Ida executed a durable power of attorney designating Arthur and two other family members (her brother Martin Behrens and her nephew, Daniel Blum) her attorneys in fact. The following year, Ida resigned as trustee of the trust in favor of attorney in fact Martin Behrens. On November 14, 1996, the attorneys in fact executed the Third Amendment,[2] which altered the trust to provide that for Ida to amend or revoke her trust she would first have to petition the Probate Court to determine her competency and to approve the amendment or revocation.
In February 1997, Ida executed the Fifth Amendment[3] to the trust. This amendment disinherited Arthur and left the estate to Locke. Ida then filed suit against the attorneys in fact--her son, brother, and nephew--alleging that they had breached their fiduciary duties to her, stolen her property, and engaged in a conspiracy against her. In turn, the attorneys in fact filed a petition to have a conservator appointed for Ida.
When the family litigation commenced, the relationships between Ida and family members other than Locke soured, and most of the family never saw or spoke to her again. In April 1997, Ida wrote a letter banning her son Arthur and his family, and the other two attorneys in fact and their respective families, from attending her eventual funeral. Ida died in September 2003.
Arthur subsequently filed suit alleging that Locke had committed elder abuse and petitioning for an order declaring the Fifth Amendment void and unenforceable. The matter proceeded to trial, and after Arthur presented his case-in-chief, Locke moved for judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8. The trial court granted the motion â€
