Cavanagh v. Cavanagh CA2/6

Filed 10/26/22 Cavanagh v. Cavanagh CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

PETER J. CAVANAGH, 2d Civil No. B310124 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2016- Plaintiff and Appellant, 00488427-PR-TR-OXN) (Ventura County) v.

MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, as Trustee, etc.,

Defendant and Respondent.

Respondent Michael F. Cavanagh (Trustee) is the trustee and one of seven beneficiaries of the Francois and Mary Carmel Cavanagh 1988 Trust (Trust). The deceased grantors of the Trust are Trustee’s parents. Trustee’s brother, Peter J. Cavanagh, also a beneficiary of the Trust, appeals in propria persona from a postjudgment order denying his motion for discovery sanctions. This is appellant’s second appeal in this matter. We granted appellant’s motion to take judicial notice of the record in the first appeal. In that appeal, we affirmed the trial court’s

judgment approving Trustee’s accounting and his actions on behalf of the Trust. (Cavanagh v. Cavanagh (April 18, 2022, B294140) [nonpub. opn.] (Cavanagh).) We also affirmed the trial court’s postjudgment order requiring appellant to pay Trustee’s reasonable expenses and costs of litigation, including attorney fees of $72,699, because appellant’s contest of Trustee’s account was without reasonable cause and in bad faith. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s postjudgment motion for discovery sanctions. Accordingly, we affirm. First Appeal The first appeal arose from the trial court’s order requiring Trustee to render an accounting of the Trust assets. In our prior opinion we noted that in the trial court appellant had claimed: “‘Trustee should be assessed exemplary damages’ because he has ‘contumaciously obstructed [appellant’s] lawful right to information through bad-faith litigation and abuse of process. There is credible evidence he has vowed to deplete Trust assets doing so. . . .’” (Cavanagh, supra, slip opn. at p. 3.) “Trustee [should] be ‘surcharge[d]’ for “‘willful misconduct.’”” (Id. at p. 2.) In our prior opinion we observed that, after a five-day court trial, the trial court had concluded: “‘[T]here is no evidence of malfeasance or misfeasance on the part of [Trustee] . . . . [Trustee] is in the position . . . of the aphorism that no good deed goes unpunished. He has been the subject of undeserved criticism from his brother, which he has borne with a largely stoic demeanor.’” (Cavanagh, supra, slip opn. at pp. 3-4.) “‘None of the improper conduct on the part of the trustee has been found to be true. There was not a reasonable basis before the petition was filed to believe they were true. . . . [Appellant] has availed