Ezor v. Page CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Sep 30, 2025 No. B339284Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding no triable issues of material fact regarding the plaintiff's claims for unfair competition and quiet title. The defendant established that she did not engage in the alleged business practices and never held title to or possession of the property in question.

Issues

Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment on the plaintiff's claim for violation of the unfair competition law.
Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment on the plaintiff's claim for quiet title.
Whether the trial court erred in its handling of the plaintiff's evidentiary objections.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“This evidence is sufficient to establish that Page does not engage in the alleged business acts or practices.”

“In her declaration, Page states that she never took title to, or possession of, the Property.”

“Our review of the record reveals no evidence giving rise to a triable issue, and Ezor identifies none on appeal.”

Filed 9/30/25 Ezor v. Page CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

ARTHUR EDWARD EZOR, B339284

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. v. No. 22STCV17343)

ELLIE PAGE, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Maurice A. Leiter, Judge. Affirmed. Arthur Edward Ezor, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. The Burbank Firm and James G. Morris for Defendants and Respondents.

******

Arthur Edward Ezor (Ezor) filed this action against numerous defendants, including Ellie Page (Page), the Trustee of the Jill Ilana Wizel Special Needs Trust (Special Needs Trust), after the probate court ordered his property to be sold to satisfy a judgment against him. The trial court granted Page’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY I. Facts1 Ezor and Jill Wizel were co-trustees of the Lydia Wizel Trust, dated June 12, 1991, and amended on August 3, 1993 (Trust). The Trust provided that the settlor’s principal residence would be allocated to a separate sub-trust for Jill Wizel and that certain specific gifts would be distributed.2 The Trust further provided that the balance of the estate would be divided in half between Lydia’s children, Jill and Robert Brown (Brown). In September 2008, Brown filed a Petition for Instructions seeking to have Ezor and Jill removed as co-trustees and surcharged for breaching their fiduciary duties. Brown also sought an accounting for the entire period of trust administration, among other things. Brown had previously raised concerns to Ezor about Jill’s competence to serve as co- trustee based upon her substance abuse, gambling problem, and psychiatric issues.

Ezor v. Page CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

ARTHUR EDWARD EZOR, B339284

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

LUI, P. J.

RICHARDSON, J.

AI Brief