Rudnick

Rudnick v. Rudnick

Good Law
102 Cal. Rptr. 3d 493·179 Cal. App. 4th 1328·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1938
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 2, 2009F056587California2,254 words

Opinion

Opinion

Levy, J.

Appellants, Philip Rudnick, Robert Rudnick, and Milton Rudnick, are three of the beneficiaries of the Rudnick Estates Trust (RET) and hold a minority interest. Respondent, Oscar Rudnick, is the trustee of the RET. After the majority of the RET beneficiaries approved the sale of the RET’s principal asset, the Onyx Ranch, respondent petitioned the probate court for instructions requesting approval of both the sale and the proposed distribution. Appellants opposed this petition.

The probate court concluded that appellants’ opposition was primarily for the purpose of causing unnecessary delay in the sale and was in bad faith. The court then awarded approximately $226,000 in attorney fees and costs to respondent and ordered these fees charged against appellants’ future trust distributions.

Appellants contend the probate court’s order should be reversed because the court had neither equitable nor statutory authority to make this award. However, contrary to appellants’ position, the probate court, as a court sitting in equity, had the authority to charge the awarded fees against appellants’ trust interests. Accordingly, the order will be affirmed.

BACKGROUND

The RET was…

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.