Gomez v. Smith CA3

Filed 10/19/20 Gomez v. Smith CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Nevada) ----

LOUISE A. GOMEZ, C091322

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. P1716096)

v.

TAMMY J. SMITH, as Trustee, etc.,

Defendant and Appellant.

In a prior appeal, we affirmed the Shasta County Superior Court’s judgment in favor of plaintiff Louise Gomez against defendant Tammy Smith for intentional interference with Gomez’s expected inheritance from Frank Gomez’s (decedent) estate (judgment). (See Gomez v. Smith (2020) __ Cal.App.5th __ .) Decedent was Gomez’s husband and Smith’s father. The Shasta County Superior Court imposed a constructive trust in favor of Gomez upon Smith’s and her brother’s share of and rights to decedent’s estate, to be held by Gomez until her death in accordance with a draft living trust attached to the judgment as an exhibit (draft living trust). Following the Shasta County Superior Court’s ruling, Gomez filed a verified petition to determine to whom trust property shall

1

pass, enforce the constructive trust, and compel transfer of trust assets (petition) in the Nevada County Superior Court (trial court). Smith filed a verified objection and opposition to the petition; she also requested an evidentiary hearing. The trial court denied the evidentiary hearing request and granted the petition. Smith appeals. Smith argues the trial court erred in denying her evidentiary hearing request on the issue of a reserve for reasonable trust administration expenses and income tax liabilities. She further argues the trial court’s order exceeds the scope of the judgment by failing to include language that Gomez’s beneficial interest is limited to a life estate. Gomez argues Smith lacks standing to challenge the trial court’s order and her evidentiary hearing request was properly denied. We find no merit in Smith’s arguments and affirm the order. We thus do not reach Gomez’s alternative standing argument. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2017, the trial court, upon Smith’s request, appointed Smith as the successor trustee of the Frank and Beverly Gomez 1998 Revocable Trust dated December 16, 1998, as amended (1998 trust). Gomez thereafter filed suit against Smith and her brother in Shasta County Superior Court, resulting in the judgment in Gomez’s favor for intentional interference with expected inheritance. The judgment imposes a constructive trust in favor of Gomez upon Smith’s and her brother’s “share of and rights to the Frank and Beverly Gomez 1998 Revocable Trust dated December 16, 1998, as amended (including those trust assets already received by them, if any), to be held by [Gomez] until her death and pursuant to the terms of the Frank P. Gomez and Louise A. Gomez Living Trust dated August 20, 2016, drafted by Erik Aanestad at the request of Frank P. Gomez (Exhibit 3 herein) as set forth in and in accordance with the Statement of Decision.”