David

David v. Hermann

Good Law
129 Cal. App. 4th 672·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 791·2005 Daily Journal DAR 5722·28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 622·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4215
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 18, 2005A101681, A104110, A104111, A104693California7,125 words

Opinion

Opinion

Swager, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment adjudicating a trust to be invalid on the ground of undue influence and fraud and from postjudgment orders concerning attorney fees. We reverse the portions of the judgment and the orders relating to attorney fees and otherwise affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The litigation arises from a history of disputes between the daughters of Zal and Jane Alter, both now deceased. The petitioner, Susan David (hereafter Susan), is the older daughter; the defendant, Wendy Alter Hermann (hereafter Wendy), is the younger. The property at issue consists primarily of the family business, the 300 Company, which owns and manages a commercial building at 300 Brannan and an apartment building at Hayes and Divisidero, both in San Francisco. In recounting the factual background, we will rely on the trial court’s lengthy and detailed statement of decision.

On January 31, 1989, Zal and Jane Alter created a revocable living trust, called the Alter Family Trust, as part of an estate plan recommended by their attorney. The complex trust provisions effectively called for equal distribution of the trust assets between their daughters on their death. Zal…

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.