Bye v. Mula CA6

Filed 9/14/22 Bye v. Mula CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

H049271 PATRICIA M. BYE, as Trustee, etc., (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 1-12-PR-171643) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PAUL S. MULA II,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Paul S. Mula II (Paul)1 challenges the probate court’s order approving a third accounting petition filed by respondent Patricia M. Bye, who is the trustee of a trust created by Paul’s aunt, Helene Mula Stouky. Paul contends that the court’s order is not supported by substantial evidence. We conclude otherwise and affirm the order. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On July 17, 2019, Bye petitioned for approval of a third trust accounting covering a two-year period from June 2017 to June 2019. The trust’s assets exceeded $5 million. The trust owned a two-thirds interest in a Juanita Avenue residence, which had a fair market value of $540,000. Paul’s stepsister, Christina Smith, paid $1,957 a month in rent to the trust for the Juanita Avenue residence. The trust paid $93,856.71 for repairs to the

1 For clarity, we generally refer to the parties by their first names.

Juanita Avenue residence during this period. The trust also owned a residence on Arbor Drive, which had a fair market value of $825,000. Paul paid between $200 and $500 a month in rent for the Arbor Drive residence during this time period. A hearing on the petition was set for October 25, 2019. On October 15, Paul filed opposition to the petition. His opposition did not request an evidentiary hearing or mention any evidence that he wished to present at the hearing. On October 24, Paul filed a supplemental opposition to the petition. On the face of his supplemental opposition, he for the first time requested an evidentiary hearing. His supplemental opposition did not explain what evidence he wished to present at an evidentiary hearing. However, in a letter to Bye dated October 24 and attached to his supplemental opposition, he made a number of requests of Bye. One of these requests was that she “explain how you intend to recover the $93k spent on Juanita and why you are charging ½ of the market rent for the rental of Juanita Ave. Explain when you will start charging Christina Weiss [Smith] market rent.” (Boldface & capitalization omitted.) At the October 25, 2019 hearing on the petition, Paul argued that the $93,000 Bye had approved for repairs to the Juanita Avenue residence was excessive, in part because, he alleged, the residence was being rented for “half of market rent.” He requested an evidentiary hearing on the propriety of the $93,000 expense. When the court asked him what evidence he wished to present at an evidentiary hearing, he explained “I want to interview the people that actually did work,” “cross-examine Pat Bye” about “why she spent $93,000 on that piece of property that was collecting half of market rent,” and “talk to Christina and find out what was the deal, why did she need to have $93,000 of work.” He also said: “I’d like to know if there’s an agreement between Patricia Bye and my sister in regards to paying half market rent for the property, for all the extras that she’s been given.” Bye’s counsel then offered to have Bye testify, and Bye did so. On direct examination by her own counsel, she testified that $93,000 had been spent over a two- 2