Stern v. Young CA3

Filed 10/28/25 Stern v. Young CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

DANIEL STERN, C100450

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 23PR000744)

v.

CAROLYN YOUNG, as Trustee, etc.,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appellant Daniel Stern petitioned the probate court to determine the validity of the Stern Family Trust (the trust). The probate court denied Stern’s petition with prejudice for lack of standing. On appeal, Stern contends the probate court abused its discretion by (1) disregarding his request for a court reporter; and (2) failing to consider less drastic alternatives to dismissing the petition with prejudice. Respondent trustee Carolyn Young urges us to affirm for both procedural and substantive reasons.

1

We affirm, finding that (1) Stern has not carried his burden on appeal to prove the lack of court reporter was reversible error; and (2) Stern’s petition was barred for lack of standing.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Stern’s parents established the trust that specifically disinherited Stern. In 2019, Stern signed a settlement agreement releasing all his claims, both known and unknown, arising from the trust and agreeing not to challenge any aspect of the trust. After his parents’ deaths, in 2023, Stern petitioned the probate court to determine the validity of the trust. The petition alleged Stern’s mother executed an amendment in 2016 naming Stern a beneficiary of the trust. The amendment accompanying the petition stated it was made in 2018 but mother’s signature on the amendment was dated 2016. Following a hearing with no court reporter present, the probate court denied the petition with prejudice for lack of standing. Stern timely appeals. DISCUSSION I. Court Reporter Stern contends the probate court abused its discretion and violated his due process rights by disregarding his request for a court reporter.1 As a result, Stern claims he cannot create an official record to effectively challenge the probate court’s decision on