Yamamoto

Yamamoto v. Parden CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 6, 2022H047484California8,385 words

Opinion

Opinion

Danner, J.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

A. Facts Parden, Sr. and his wife, Batinich, (together, trustors) executed the trust in 1993. On September 10, 2012, the trustors amended and restated the trust. They placed the family home located at 1652 Husted Avenue in San Jose, California (the Husted home) in the trust and provided that, upon their death, trust assets—including the home and all personal property and household effects—would be distributed in equal shares to their three sons: Marko Herbert Parden, Jonathan Bruce Parden, and Parden, Jr. The trustors appointed Batinich as the original trustee and Parden, Jr. as her successor. At all times relevant to this action, Parden, Jr. has been the trustee of the trust. In April 2014, Parden, Jr. hired Yamamoto as an in-home caregiver for Batinich, who was in poor health, and to provide some assistance to Parden, Sr., who was in his 80s. Yamamoto cared for Batinich until her death on January 15, 2016. After Batinich passed away, Yamamoto continued to serve as a caregiver for Parden, Sr. On April 25, 2016,3 Parden, Sr. married Yamamoto. On May 2, Parden, Jr. received a letter from attorney Teresa Hung on behalf of Parden, Sr. requesting…

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.