Pestana

Pestana v. Kelly CA4

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 11, 2015C072268California1,606 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

A year after Ernest’s 2009 death, Edward claimed Ernest’s estate owed him $859,377.78 pursuant to a January 1999 oral agreement. In that creditor’s claim, he alleged that Lockeford Oaks had been purchased by the Ernest and Irene Pestana Community Property Trust for $2.8 million and Ernest later refused purchase offers in the range of $21 million to $61 million. In addition to a 10 percent share of net proceeds when the trust eventually sold Lockeford Oaks, Edward claimed the immediate right to $75 per hour for 1,000 hours per year plus expenses for the 10 years preceding Ernest’s death. Citing the estate’s rejection of this claim in November 2010, Edward filed a complaint in Santa Clara County for breach of contract, fraud and quantum meruit against Michael as trustee of Ernest’s trusts and personal representative of his estate and also against Irene individually and as Michael’s co-trustee. In the Santa Clara complaint, Edward alleged that Ernest had refused to sell the property so that “potential profit on the project could be realized,” but he also alleged in the alternative that Ernest never intended to go through with the project or share the profit with Edward.…

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.