Cash

Cash v. Federizo CA2/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 24, 2022B306935California740 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

We only recite those facts necessary to resolve the issues on appeal, doing so in the light most favorable to the probate court’s order. (Estate of Young (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 62, 76.) Cleo created the trust and transferred her principal residence, miscellaneous real and personal property to it. She named herself as trustee, however, in the event she became incapacitated, Cash and Cornell were to become successor trustees, or, alternatively, Cash and Bass. After Cleo became incapacitated, Bass was appointed conservator, and petitioned the probate court for an order appointing herself as successor trustee, or, alternatively, her and Cornell as successor cotrustees. In March 2015, the probate court granted Bass’s petition and appointed her and Cornell as successor cotrustees.2 The probate court granted the petition over Cash’s objections. It found that Cash was unable to work with either sibling as a successor cotrustee negatively impacting her ability to administer the trust for Cleo’s benefit. Bass and Cornell acted in that capacity until December 2016 when the

1 For the sake of clarity, and meaning no disrespect, we refer to Cleo Jones and Cornell Jones by their…

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.