Reedy v. Bussell
Bussell appealed the interlocutory judgment, asserting (1) the judgment violated the spendthrift provision of the trust and Probate Code sections 15300 and 15301; (2) the court erred by including an award of attorney fees and costs in the judgment; and (3) the court erred in awarding Reedy the costs of maintaining, preserving and marketing the property. We affirmed the interlocutory judgment in a nonpublished opinion, Reedy v. Bussell (Jan. 6, 2010, D054569) (Reedy I).
Following remand, Reedy brought a motion for an order confirming the sale of the property to the City of San Marcos in the amount of $6.5 million. The motion asserted that the sale was upon terms and a price that were the best that could be obtained.
Bussell opposed the motion, asserting (1) the process which culminated in the sale was unfair in that the sale price was based on an appraisal that was prepared by an appraiser who was retained and paid by the proposed purchaser of the property; (2) the appraisal was 18 months old; (3) Reedy had not served the motion on all parties who appeared in the action; and (4) if the motion was granted, he requested that the proceeds be deposited with the court pending resolution of the proper distribution of the proceeds from the sale
Comments on Reedy v. Bussell