Shanley v. Shanley
Plaintiff and appellant Denise Shanley appeals the judgment entered after a bench trial. She contends the trial court prejudicially erred when it (i) excluded the testimony of an expert witness she untimely designated to rebut a handwriting expert purportedly designated by her cotrustee brother, defendant and respondent Kirk Shanley, that Kirk did not call as a witness at trial; (ii) ruled Kirk had preserved his objections to Denise's second accounting despite his failure to provide such pretrial objections in writing; and (iii) admitted for impeachment purposes both Denise's record of conviction and the factual statement supporting her guilty plea arising from her unlawful billing of a workers' compensation carrier for chiropractic services she rendered.
Denise also contends the court erred when it found (iv) she subsequently recouped nearly all of the funds she transferred without consideration to E.M. Kelly Shanley—the mother of Denise and Kirk (the decedent)—during the course of the criminal investigation against Denise; (v) she breached her fiduciary duty as a cotrustee of the trust; and (vi) there was no agreement between her and the decedent to acquire together a valuable piece of real property located in Carlsbad (Carlsbad property) in which title was in decedent's name only.
As we explain, we reject each of Denise's contentions and affirm the judgment in its entirety.
Comments on Shanley v. Shanley