Estate of Leopold CA2/6
Filed 9/12/22 Estate of Leopold CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
Estate of KENNETH V. 2d Civ. No. B313758 LEOPOLD, Deceased. (Super. Ct. No. 56-2021- 00551440-PR-TR-OXN) (Ventura County)
KEVIN R. LEOPOLD,
Appellant,
v.
KENNETH W. LEOPOLD,
Respondent.
Appellant Kevin Leopold contested a trust that disinherited him of any interest in his late father’s estate. The probate court dismissed the petition as time-barred. In so ruling, the court found the trustee, respondent Kenneth W. Leopold, timely served
notice under Probate Code section 16061.71 and thereby triggered section 16061.8’s 120-day deadline to contest the trust. We affirm the court’s ruling, as well as its denial of relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Kenneth and Kevin are brothers.2 Their late father’s estate plan treated them very differently. Kenneth received all trust property, including sole title to the longtime family home at 3666 Birdsong Avenue in Thousand Oaks. Kevin received nothing. A trust their father executed in 2016 (the 2016 Trust) expressly disinherited him. A restatement executed in January 2020 (the 2020 Restatement) did so as well. Their father died in April 2020. Kenneth serves as trustee of the estate and now lives at the Birdsong house with his wife Diana. Kevin is a transient. Appellant filed a petition contesting the validity of the 2020 Restatement on March 3, 2021. (§ 17200.)3 He alleged his brother’s undue influence caused his father to disinherit him. Kenneth objected to Kevin’s petition as time-barred under section 16061.8. He submitted affidavits and exhibits showing Kevin missed section 16061.8’s 120-day deadline by three months using even the most conservative methods of calculation. In addition,
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)