Spangler v. Thompson CA1/5

Filed 12/23/24 Spangler v. Thompson CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

LISA SPANGLER, as Trustee, etc., Petitioner and Respondent, A167585 v. JENNIFER THOMPSON, (Marin County Objector and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. PR2203341)

Because this appeal is determined by well-settled legal principles, we decide it by memorandum disposition and recite only those facts necessary to resolve the relevant issues. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) On October 14, 2022, petitioner Lisa Spangler, successor trustee of the “Beneken Exempt Family Trust f/b/o Eric H. Beneken c/a/d May 24, 1991” (Beneken Family Trust), filed a petition to establish the trust’s ownership and for declaratory relief in the trial court (petition). Petitioner was the sister of Eric H. Beneken, who passed away in 2022. Objector Jennifer Thompson objected to the petition and requested an evidentiary hearing.1 On March 27, 2023, following a bench trial that featured testimony from both parties, the trial court entered an order awarding judgment in

1 Objector and Eric H. Beneken appear to have had a close relationship;

however, the exact nature of their relationship is unclear from the record.

1

favor of petitioner on the petition. In doing so, the trial court specifically found that: (1) notice of the petition was given as required by law; (2) the Beneken Family Trust holds all right, title and interest in the following properties: (a) an older mobile home bearing serial number 4112, label MH271640, decal AAV5717, (b) a newer mobile home presently located on 39 Scenic Drive, Novato, California 94944, and (c) a specified Merrill Lynch account; and (3) objector has no valid ownership interest in any of the subject properties. On April 10, 2023, objector filed an “Appeal” of the order granting the petition in the superior court in which she set forth “Contentions and Response to Declaratory Relief.” (Some capitalization omitted.) Among other things, objector contended the decedent, Eric H. Beneken, left a “will in Testament [sic]” naming her as “Executor and Sole Beneficiary.” It is unclear from the record whether, or how, the trial court responded to objector’s filing. However, on April 17, 2023, objector’s notice of appeal was lodged in this court. On May 9, 2024, objector, proceeding in propria persona, filed an opening brief in which she argues: “The Trial Court erred on multiple occasions by ignoring the multiple challenges to Lisa Spanglers continued ‘Breach of Fiduciary Duty’ under . . . Family Code Section 1101 which creates a ‘Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary’, and is not ‘Time Barred’.” (Sic., boldface omitted.) We conclude objector’s briefs failed to satisfy even the minimal standards of appellate procedure necessary to establish a basis for disturbing the trial court’s order. We therefore deem objector’s arguments to have been forfeited and affirm.