Bye

Bye v. Mula CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 14, 2022H049271California1,178 words

Opinion

Opinion

Danner, J.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 17, 2019, Bye petitioned for approval of a third trust accounting covering a two-year period from June 2017 to June 2019. The trust’s assets exceeded $5 million. The trust owned a two-thirds interest in a Juanita Avenue residence, which had a fair market value of $540,000. Paul’s stepsister, Christina Smith, paid $1,957 a month in rent to the trust for the Juanita Avenue residence. The trust paid $93,856.71 for repairs to the

1 For clarity, we generally refer to the parties by their first names. Juanita Avenue residence during this period. The trust also owned a residence on Arbor Drive, which had a fair market value of $825,000. Paul paid between $200 and $500 a month in rent for the Arbor Drive residence during this time period. A hearing on the petition was set for October 25, 2019. On October 15, Paul filed opposition to the petition. His opposition did not request an evidentiary hearing or mention any evidence that he wished to present at the hearing. On October 24, Paul filed a supplemental opposition to the petition. On the face of his supplemental opposition, he for the first time requested an evidentiary hearing. His…

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.