Haacke

Haacke v. Pfister CA4/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 11, 2025E081792California4,032 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and appellant Rodney Haacke filed a civil action against defendant and

respondent Desrie Pfister arising out of disputes related to the management of their

parents’ trust. In May 2023, the case proceeded to trial before a jury on causes of action

for breach of contract and fraud. However, at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case-in-chief,

the trial court granted a motion for nonsuit and entered judgment in defendant’s favor.

Plaintiff appeals from the judgment. After consideration of the arguments made by

plaintiff in his opening brief, we affirm the judgment.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Operative Complaint and Allegations

The operative pleading in this case is the second amended complaint (SAC) filed

on July 2021. According to the SAC, Karl Haacke and Veva Haacke established the

Haacke Family Trust (the Trust) in 1994 shortly before Karl Haacke passed away. In

2012, Veva Haacke was diagnosed with cognitive issues related to dementia, resulting in

plaintiff and defendant succeeding as co-trustees of the Trust. From 2012-2017,

defendant allegedly engaged in numerous acts of mismanagement involving Trust assets.

The SAC alleges that, at some point,…

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.