Wells Fargo Bank v. Cornell CA4/3
Opinion
Opinion
Moore, J.
FACTS
We refer the reader to the statement of facts in the companion case.3 We shall add additional facts as relevant in our discussion.
1 We refer to the parties by their first names for the ease of the reader. No disrespect is intended. (In re Marriage of Smith (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 469, 475-476, fn. 1.)
2 Also discussed more fully in the companion case are the various trusts that comprise the Cornell estate, including the Community Property Trust. Trust A was Clark’s separate property. Trust “B” (Trust B) was a marital trust from Clark’s first marriage and also his separate property.
3 As we mentioned in the companion case, Janet’s briefs are poorly organized, mixing factual recitations and legal arguments, and thereby making it difficult to separate and sort out her legal claims. We have done our best to do so and deem any remaining point waived due to inadequate briefing. (Akins v. State of California (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1, 17, fn. 9.) She also raises several points in her reply brief which she neglects to discuss or mention at all in her opening brief. Any such arguments are deemed waived. (Schubert v. Reynolds (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 100, 108.)