Taubman v. U.S. Bank, N.A., Trustee CA2/7

Filed 5/9/16 Taubman v. U.S. Bank, N.A., Trustee CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

ANNE C. TAUBMAN et al., B267154

Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BP066539) v.

U.S. BANK, N.A., Trustee,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Maria E. Stratton, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs Howard Avchen & Shapiro LLP, Barry E. Fink and Elizabeth G. Chilton for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

____________________________

In what should have been the final chapter of a long story, the probate court was presented with the request for an order finalizing the proceedings. Through a series of procedural problems, the court made an order, but then entered a judgment that did not reflect its ruling. Although trustee U.S. Bank promptly sought correction, the steps necessary to resolve the problem were not taken in a timely manner. As the record clearly demonstrates that the order should be vacated, we reverse, and remand for the probate court to enter an order consistent with its ruling.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY In light of the fact that this appeal involves an order as to which there is no dispute, the factual summary relates only to the events surrounding that order. On July 6, 2012, U.S. Bank, the Trustee of The Janice L. Taubman 1990 Revocable Trust (Trustee), filed a petition to wind up the trust, pay legal fees and expenses, approve the Trustee’s accounting, distribute assets, and permit the Trustee to resign. The Trustee filed a supplement to the petition on September 4, 2012, providing further information as to distributions that had been made. After the hearing on the petition was continued, the Trustee filed a second supplement to the petition, providing additional information about distributions and supplementing the accounting. The court heard the petition on December 23, 2014, and issued a ruling on February 2, 2015. That ruling, however, did not include information provided in the supplements to the petition, and appeared instead to rely on superseded probate notes. The Trustee sought clarification in a filing made on February 13, 2015. Beneficiary Anne Taubman1 also objected to the February order, and agreed that it failed to address the recent filings. The court heard her motion on April 14, 2015, and denied it on May 28, 2015. The court granted the Trustee’s motion for clarification in an order dated July 6, 2015.