Halimi v. Grant CA2/8

Filed 10/2/13 Halimi v. Grant CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

GEORGE M. HALIMI, B240730 Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and (Los Angeles County Appellant, Super. Ct. No. BC453298) v.

DENNIS GRANT, Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Susan Bryant-Deason and Victor E. Chavez, Judges. Affirmed.

George M. Halimi, in pro. per., for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant.

Kerendian & Associates, Shab D. Kerendian, Shawn S. Kerendian, Erika P. Licon, Verlan Y. Kwan and Julie R. Woods for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant.

*********

Plaintiff, cross-defendant and appellant George Halimi is a lawyer who represented defendant, cross-complainant and appellant Dennis Grant in regard to his rights as a beneficiary of the trust of his late mother. After the trust action was settled, Halimi sued Grant for unpaid legal fees. Grant filed a cross-complaint against Halimi pleading professional malpractice and other causes of action. The trial court sustained the demurrer to Halimi’s first amended complaint without leave to amend as to the first through fourth causes of action but permitted the filing of a second amended complaint for quantum meruit. At the beginning of trial, Halimi voluntarily dismissed this complaint, and a three-day court trial ensued on the cross-complaint. The trial court awarded Grant $200,000 on the cross-complaint. Halimi and Grant each appeal from the judgment. We affirm. BACKGROUND 1. The Trust Action Pursuant to the 2005 amendment to her trust, Grant’s mother designated Grant as the sole beneficiary. In 2006, Linda Goldman-Ofer (Ofer), Grant’s sister, induced their elderly and mentally incompetent mother to amend the trust to designate both Grant and Ofer as beneficiaries, in equal shares as to the personal trust assets. Grant retained Halimi to represent him in a challenge to the 2006 amendment. Halimi filed a petition to invalidate that amendment more than 120 days after Ofer had given a trustee’s notification. The probate court sustained Ofer’s demurrer to the petition on the ground it was not timely and granted leave to amend. The amended petition merely alleged the challenge to the 2006 trust amendment had been filed within the requisite 120 days, which was incorrect. Ofer moved for summary judgment on the ground the petition was untimely. The motion was scheduled to be heard about a month after mediation. During mediation, Grant and Ofer entered into a settlement agreement whereby Ofer would receive a total of $531,365.88 of the trust’s personal assets and Grant would receive only $653,483.69, or 60 percent of the personal assets in the trust at the time of settlement,