Estate of Eades CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Jan 22, 2025 No. B325598Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A trustee who is also a tenant in common of trust property does not breach their fiduciary duty by occupying a portion of that property as a residence without paying rent, provided the occupation is a valid exercise of their rights as a cotenant and consistent with the settlor's intent.

Issues

Whether a trustee who is a tenant in common of real property has a fiduciary duty to pay rent to the trust for their personal residence on that property.
Whether the probate court erred in instructing that the trustee was not required to pay rent for his occupation of the property.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Robert, in his capacity as a tenant in common, does not owe Carole rent for his occupation of the front unit.”

“Robert, however, did not occupy the front unit in his capacity as a trustee, but as a valid exercise of his rights as a tenant in common, as contemplated by the Trust.”

Filed 1/22/25 Estate of Eades CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

Estate of ARTHUR E. EADES, B325598 Deceased. (Los Angeles County ROBERT EADES, as Trustee, Super. Ct. No. etc. 19STPB02436)

Petitioner and Respondent,

CAROLE STRAUCH,

Objector and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gus T. May, Judge. Affirmed. Baker, Burton & Lundy and Brad N. Baker, for Objector and Appellant. Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester, Daniel B. Herbert, Kirsten A. Brown, and Steven J. Renick, for Petitioner and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Carole Strauch (Carole) appeals from the probate court’s order on a petition for instructions, filed by petitioner and trustee Robert Eades (Robert), pursuant to Probate Code1 section 17200, subdivision (b)(6). We affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Trust and the Property

Robert and Carole are the children of Arthur E. Eades (Arthur). On January 31, 2000, Arthur, as trustor, created the Arthur E. Eades Trust (the Trust), and designated himself as the trustee. On June 26, 2015, Arthur amended the Trust to provide that, upon his death and the distribution of certain gifts, the remainder of the Trust estate be distributed equally between Robert and Carole. The Trust’s assets included real property located at 17th Street in Manhattan Beach (the Property), which consisted of a front and a back unit. During Arthur’s lifetime, he occupied the back unit while Robert, Robert’s wife Joanna Eades (Joanna), and their children occupied the front unit. The amendment to the Trust provided for the following disposition and distribution of the Property: “The [Property] produces rental income and contains the primary residence of [Robert]. The real property is held in tenancy in common, with the Trust and [Robert] each holding equal and undivided fifty

Estate of Eades CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

CAROLE STRAUCH,

I. INTRODUCTION

II. BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III. DISCUSSION

IV. DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM (D.), J.

MOOR, J.

AI Brief