Cockren v. Brown CA5

Filed 6/21/22 Cockren v. Brown CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DUSTIN J. COCKREN, F081073 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BPB-16-002660) v.

BOB D. BROWN, as Cotrustee, etc. et al., OPINION Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Robert S. Tafoya, Judge. Dake, Braun & Monje, Craig N. Braun, for Defendants and Appellants. Fennemore Dowling Aaron, Kenneth M. Byrum, Leigh W. Burnside, and Daniel O. Jamison, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

Our opinion in this case is issued simultaneously with our opinion in a companion case, Cockren v. Brown et al., F080282 [nonpub. opn.]). Both appeals arose from the same case in probate court. Case No. F080282 is the appeal from the probate court’s ruling on the questions at issue during the trial in the matter. The instant case is an appeal of the probate court’s ruling on a post-trial motion for attorney’s fees. These two cases arose from a trust created by William Rommel. We will summarize the essential facts. Rommel amended and restated an existing trust in 2013. Rommel was in his 90s at the time, had a broken back, and died two weeks after he signed the amended trust. A dispute arose as to whether Rommel had included an oil and gas lease (oil lease) and the oil and gas rights (oil rights) underlying the lease, in the amended trust. Dustin Cockren, the petitioner below and respondent on appeal, filed a petition under Probate Code section 850 against two co-trustees of the amended trust, Bob Brown and Kelley Brown, seeking distribution, from the trust, of the oil lease, royalty payments arising from the oil lease, and the oil rights underlying the lease. The co-trustees argued in the probate court that they could not transfer the oil lease or oil rights to Dustin because before Rommel died, he did not sign separate transfer documents (apart from the trust itself) to convey the legal title of his oil lease and oil rights to the trust. The probate court rejected the co-trustees’ contentions and ruled in favor of Dustin. Among other remedies, the probate court ordered the co-trustees to execute a conveyance of Rommel’s oil assets to themselves as trustees and distribute them to Dustin and to distribute the royalty payments to Dustin as well. The probate court further found the co-trustees had acted in bad faith under Probate Code section 859 by, among other things, failing to distribute the royalty payments generated by the oil lease to the named trust beneficiary (who had assigned her interest to Dustin) and instead distributing the payments to co-trustee Kelley Brown. Consequently, the probate court surcharged the co-trustees by awarding Dustin double damages under Probate Code section 859.