Elias v. Jensen CA4/3

Filed 3/3/22 Elias v. Jensen CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

DAVID ELIAS,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G060100 consol. w/ G060101

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2018-00980796)

SUZANNE JENSEN, as Cotrustee, OPINION etc., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kim R. Hubbard, Judge. Affirmed. Request for supplemental authorities. Denied. David Elias, in pro per. Murtagh Treglia Stern & Deily, W. Rod Stern, and Janice L. Fay, for Defendants and Respondents. * * *

David Elias appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to rescind a settlement agreement and its order denying his petition to enforce a no contest 1 clause. As explained below, Elias has failed to show any prejudicial error. Accordingly, we affirm.

I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On November 1, 2019, the parties and other beneficiaries of the J. G. Elias Trust entered into a written settlement agreement. The agreement provided for various distributions to the beneficiaries, and contained a mutual general release between and among the parties and a waiver of Civil Code section 1542. Both Elias and his attorney signed the document. The trial court approved the settlement and entered an order on November 5, 2019. After receiving cash distributions pursuant to the settlement agreement, Elias sought to rescind the agreement, asserting fraud and breach of fiduciary duties. Among other things, he alleged opposing counsel breached their fiduciary duties to all parties by invoking the no contest clause in the trust document, and his attorney breached her fiduciary duties to him by failing to invoke the no contest clause and trying to