Rasmussen, Trustee v. Howard CA6

Filed 3/10/16 Rasmussen, Trustee v. Howard CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JEANETTE E. RASMUSSEN, as Trustee, H041353 etc., (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 1-14-PR174551) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FRANKLIN and FREDRICK HOWARD et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Sybil J. Howard executed an inter vivos trust in 2008 designating herself as trustee and her daughter, respondent Jeanette E. Rasmussen, as first successor trustee. Sybil Howard died in 2012, making the trust irrevocable. Respondent, now serving as trustee, and her two brothers, appellants Franklin and Fredrick Howard, are beneficiaries with equal interests in the trust estate. The trustee resides in Santa Clara County, and the trust’s primary assets are homes in Danville and Pittsburg, California (Contra Costa County). Appellants challenge the probate court’s order instructing respondent to take certain actions to protect those properties. Finding no error, we will affirm. I. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS Respondent filed a petition under Probate Code section 17200,1 seeking an order (1) to instruct the trustee to provide appellants 15 days’ notice to collect their personal items from the Danville and Pittsburg properties and three storage units paid for by the

1 All statutory references are to the Probate Code.

trust, and (2) to authorize the trustee to sell, remove, and/or destroy any items left on the properties. Respondent further requested that the court order the proceeds from any item sold for value to become part of the trust estate. According to the petition, appellants have filled the properties with an “unimaginable amount of miscellaneous personal items” since their mother died. The home interiors are nearly impassable due to “floor- to-ceiling clutter.” The petition included photographs supporting respondent’s claim that appellants’ personal items stored on the properties have created fire, health, sanitary, and nuisance concerns. The petition identified both properties as being in dire need of repair, and respondent is unable to make those repairs without the removal of appellants’ personal possessions. The May 2014 petition referenced a February 2014 Contra Costa County Fire Protection District notice to abate the flammable vegetation and rubbish on the Pittsburg property. Appellants repeatedly refused to retain the services of a hauling contractor, and although they assured respondent they would comply with the abatement order, they failed to do so. The district took abatement action in late March 2014, and billed respondent over $77,000 to remove 366 cubic yards of rubbish. The trust does not have the funds to pay for the abatement work, necessitating repair and sale of one or both properties. According to the petition, the Danville property stores items including inoperable appliances, electronics, furniture, fixtures, buckets, bicycles, lawnmowers, unregistered cars, motorcycles, and a motor home. In places, appellants’ personal items nearly reach the roof and extend throughout the yard. The local fire district served respondent with an abatement notice for that property in April 2014. As of the filing of the petition, action had not yet been taken on that notice, but respondent expected it would lead to a large scale abatement similar to the one undertaken on the Pittsburg property. The petition identified three storage units paid for by the trust that might contain personal items once belonging to Sybil Howard. But respondent alleged the majority of 2