Newell

Newell v. Super. Ct.

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 20, 2024B339383California3,432 words

Opinion

Opinion

INTRODUCTION

Lucy Mancini Newell was supposed to be the trustee and sole beneficiary of her parents’ trust. But after her father, Arthur Mancini, died in his early 90’s, Newell learned he had amended the trust to name his 56-year-old caregiver, Neneth Rollins, as the trust’s trustee and sole beneficiary. Newell filed a petition challenging the validity of the trust amendments that changed the trustee and beneficiary of the trust from Newell to Rollins. And when Newell discovered Rollins used trust assets to purchase real property, Newell recorded a lis pendens against the property and amended her petition to include, among other things, a request to impose a constructive trust on the property. Rollins moved to expunge the lis pendens under Code of Civil Procedure section 405.31. 1 The probate court granted the motion, ruling Newell’s petition did not contain a “real property claim,” within the meaning of section 405.4. Because Newell’s petition, if successful, would affect title to the property, she pleaded a real property claim. Therefore, we grant Newell’s petition for writ of mandate, direct the probate court to vacate its order granting the motion to expunge, and direct the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.