Steel v. Toccoli CA3

Filed 12/3/24 Steel v. Toccoli CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

CHERYL STEEL, Individually and as Trustee, etc., C097125

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-PR-TR- 2016-0000544) v.

LORI M. TOCCOLI, as Trustee, etc.,

Defendant and Appellant.

This appeal challenges the trial court’s denial of a trustee’s motion to compel arbitration filed in response to a related trustee’s petition for the appointment of a receiver—a receiver who would manage assets and resolve issues that are subject to the parties’ arbitration agreement. We reverse the trial court’s order.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS Plaintiff Cheryl Steel and defendant Lori M. Toccoli are sisters who serve as trustees of, and are beneficiaries of, related trusts which hold the estate of their deceased

1

parents. The parties entered into settlement agreements in 2017 and 2018 to resolve disputes over how the trusts’ assets should be sold and the proceeds distributed. In the 2017 settlement, the parties agreed to arbitrate any disputes regarding the application or performance of the settlement agreement. In the 2018 settlement agreement, the parties reaffirmed the arbitration agreement made in the 2017 settlement. They also specifically agreed to arbitrate (1) if they cannot agree upon an asset’s listing price, (2) any issues concerning the legitimacy of an offer, (3) any disputes concerning offers made by either of the parties, and (4) if, within two days after expressing written objections to an offer, the parties cannot agree to accept, reject, make a counteroffer, or otherwise unanimously proceed in response to an offer. Despite the settlement agreements and an arbitration conducted in 2020, attempts to sell assets have been unsuccessful, disputes have continued between the parties, including disputes over the assets’ values and listing prices, and most of the assets remain unsold, now more than eight years since the parties’ last surviving parent’s death. Plaintiff petitioned the trial court for the appointment of a receiver to market and sell the trusts’ assets, including determining each asset’s listing price. She brought her petition under Probate Code section 16420, which authorizes a beneficiary or co-trustee, if a trustee commits a breach of trust, to commence a proceeding to appoint a receiver to take possession of the trust property and administer the trust. (Prob. Code, § 16420, subd. (a)(3).) In response, defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration. She contended that plaintiff had agreed in the settlement agreements to arbitrate the issues she had petitioned for a receiver to resolve. All of plaintiff’s disputes concerned the attempted sale of the assets and other related grievances—issues that squarely fell within the 2017 and 2018 arbitration agreements. Further, plaintiff had refused to arbitrate the issues. Defendant thus asserted that the form of plaintiff’s petitioned for relief violated the arbitration