Bozigian v. Saputo CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Mar 20, 2014 No. B248636Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties as trustees because the real property in question was not a trust asset at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in finding that the defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties.
Whether the trial court erred in finding that the defendants did not wrongfully take trust property.
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to attorney's fees and surcharges against the defendants.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Defendants’ actions relating to the Norwalk property did not constitute a breach of trust because the real property was not a trust asset.”

“Substantial evidence supports the probate court’s findings that defendants did not breach any fiduciary duty.”

“Because defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties, plaintiff is not entitled to surcharges against defendants or any attorney’s fee award.”

Filed 3/20/14 Bozigian v. Saputo CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

STEVE BOZIGIAN, B248636

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VP011561) v.

SUSAN MERCEDES SAPUTO et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daniel S. Murphy, Judge. Affirmed. Velasco Law Group, Paul D. Velasco, Richard J. Radcliffe and Dana M. Cannon for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Offices of Anju Multani and Anju Multani for Defendants and Respondents.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Steve Bozigian, appeals from an October 30, 2012 judgment entered after two bench trials. Plaintiff argues the probate court erred in finding defendants, Susan Mercedes Saputo and Sandra Marie Martin, did not breach their fiduciary duties. Defendants are co-trustees of the Rose D. Bozigian Living Trust (the trust). The trust was established by the parties’ deceased mother. Plaintiff contends there is a disconnect between: the trial court’s findings in the two phases of the trial; defendants’ alleged admissions of substantial self-dealing; and the erroneous judgment. Plaintiff also asserts it was error to approve defendants’ accounting. He argues defendants should have been surcharged because they misappropriated trust property and breached their fiduciary duty. In addition, plaintiff contends he is entitled to an attorney’s fee award because of defendants’ misconduct. Plaintiff’s claims are all premised on the theory there was misconduct in connection with a trust asset, Ms. Bozigian’s former residence. However, substantial evidence supports the conclusion the residence was not at any relevant time a trust asset. We affirm the judgment.

Bozigian v. Saputo CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

STEVE BOZIGIAN, B248636

I. INTRODUCTION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

II. BACKGROUND

III. DISCUSSION

IV. DISPOSITION

TURNER, P. J.

MOSK, J.

AI Brief