Shine

People ex rel. Harris v. Shine

Good Law
16 Cal. App. 5th 524·2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 925·224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 380·2017 WL 4768865
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 23, 2017A148505California6,740 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Bruiniers, J.

*527 William B. Shine was the trustee of a family trust. Pursuant to statutory authority for supervision of charitable trusts ( *528 Gov. Code, §§ 12591, 12598 ), the Attorney General petitioned for Shine's removal and for surcharge based on his mismanagement of the trust, and an interim substitute trustee was appointed. Shine successfully petitioned the trial court for advanced fees from the trust for defense of the petition, subject to repayment if he was ultimately found not entitled to indemnification. The People appeal. Because the probate court applied an incorrect legal standard, failing to weigh all relevant factors, in making the pendente lite fee award, we reverse and remand for reconsideration.

I. BACKGROUND

The 1995 Trust

Robert A. and Eva M. Lindskog (Robert and Eva) established a revocable trust in 1995 (Trust) as an estate planning vehicle. As later amended, the Trust provided that on Eva's death all but $1 million of her share of trust property "shall be irrevocably set aside for charitable purposes and held as the LIVEWIRE LINDSKOG FOUNDATION" (Foundation). 1 Robert *383 and Eva designated themselves original cotrustees and Shine successor trustee. Robert…

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.