Dinneen v. Dinneen CA1/4

Filed 9/3/25 Dinneen v. Dinneen CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

ROBERT DINNEEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, A169602 v. DEBRA DINNEEN et al., (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. P22-01872) Defendants and Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 In November 2022, Robert Dinneen commenced the present action by filing a petition for orders (1) determining the existence of The Robert B. Dinneen 2022 Trust (the 2022 Trust), (2) confirming the validity of the terms of the 2022 Trust, and (3) confirming ownership of assets by the trustee of the 2022 Trust. Two of his three children, Debra and James Dinneen, opposed the petition. 2

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to

the California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. 2 We refer to the parties by their first names to avoid

confusion. No disrespect is intended. (See Askew v. Askew (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 942, 947, fn. 6.)

In June 2023, the court was notified that the action had been settled. In September 2023, Robert filed a Petition to Approve Settlement Agreement and Release and to Confirm Validity of 2023 Estate Documents of Robert B. Dinneen (petition to approve the settlement). A hearing on the petition was set for February 13, 2024. The proof of service indicates that all relevant parties were served with the petition and notice of the hearing. A proposed order granting the petition was submitted with the petition. On September 27, however, the day after the petition was filed and well before the February hearing, the court signed the proposed order granting the petition. The order was stamped “ex parte” in place of the date and time for hearing. The order was not filed until October 26. In the meantime, on October 4, Robert filed a substitution of attorney. On October 23, before the order granting the petition to approve the settlement was filed, Robert, now represented by his new attorney, filed requests for dismissal of both his original petition and the petition to approve the settlement. On October 26, the following email was sent from the office of Robert’s new attorney to the court, “We’re frantic here about an[] Order that was filed yesterday. We got a call from Robert Dinneen’s former counsel that you called yesterday to pick up an Order. We’re in the middle of preparing an Ex Parte to be heard tomorrow morning on this matter and are concerned the nature of the Order that was filed today will have great bearing on our