Reinhardt v. Reinhardt CA5

Filed 8/29/13 Reinhardt v. Reinhardt CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DAVE REINHARDT, F064936 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 11CEPR01088) v.

MARIEL REINHARDT, as Trustee, etc., OPINION Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Robert H. Oliver, Judge. Dave Reinhardt, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Georgeson, Belardinelli and Noyes, C. Russell Georgeson and Chris Noyes for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo- Appellant, Dave Reinhardt, challenges the probate court‟s denial of various petitions he filed against respondent, Mariel Reinhardt. These petitions all pertain to appellant‟s claim that respondent “altered or falsified” a trust instrument to change the names of the beneficiaries and thereby wrongfully deprived appellant of his inheritance.

The probate court denied these petitions on several grounds, including that they were barred by res judicata. Appellant acknowledges that the identical issue was decided against him in a prior proceeding. Nevertheless, appellant argues that res judicata does not apply. According to appellant, because the judgment in the prior proceeding followed the sustaining of a demurrer to his complaint without leave to amend, there was not a final judgment on the merits. Contrary to appellant‟s position, a judgment on a demurrer is a bar to a new action in which the same facts are alleged. Therefore, the probate court‟s orders are affirmed. Appellant is precluded from continuing to litigate this claim. BACKGROUND In June and July 2011, appellant filed multiple pleadings in the civil division of the superior court. These pleadings all concerned appellant‟s allegation that several parties, including respondent, engaged in wrongful conduct by altering and falsifying the dispositive provisions of the Maxwell Family Trust (Trust). Appellant alleged that respondent altered the Trust to make herself the beneficiary and thereby stole appellant‟s inheritance. Respondent was the successor trustee of the Trust. The trustors of the Trust were appellant‟s grandparents. Respondent is the trustors‟ daughter and appellant‟s mother. According to appellant, the Trust originally provided that, following the trustors‟ deaths, appellant and his sister would receive the Trust estate. In the copy of the Trust attached to one of appellant‟s underlying petitions, appellant is named as a contingent beneficiary. The surviving trustor, appellant‟s grandfather, died in 1987. In April 2003, appellant learned that respondent was the sole beneficiary of the Trust. Thereafter, appellant made threatening calls to William Coleman, the attorney probating his grandfather‟s estate, and to respondent and her husband, appellant‟s father, demanding his trust fund. In September 2003, the situation escalated. Appellant barricaded himself