Gibson v. Sacramento County Public Administrator CA3

Filed 11/15/22 Gibson v. Sacramento County Public Administrator CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

DANIEL E. GIBSON, as Successor Trustee, etc.,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C095197

v. (Super. Ct. No. 34-2021- 00294152-PR-TR-FRC) SACRAMENTO COUNTY PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR,

Defendant and Appellant.

The trust document for the Elizabeth E. Gibson Family Trust (the trust) provided that upon Elizabeth’s death,1 the trustee could pay trust funds to Elizabeth’s long-time partner Sheila Thornton during Sheila’s lifetime for Sheila’s support, and that upon Sheila’s death, the balance of the trust, if any, would be distributed to Elizabeth’s heirs. An amendment specified that upon Elizabeth’s death, the trust’s interest in a Sacramento house Elizabeth shared with Sheila would be distributed to Sheila. The trust and Sheila each owned a half interest in the house.

1 We refer to individuals by their first names for clarity.

1

Sheila was the successor trustee upon Elizabeth’s death, but she never transferred the trust’s half interest in the house to herself. After Sheila died, Elizabeth’s brother Daniel, who had become the successor trustee, petitioned the probate court to distribute the trust’s interest in the sale of the house to Elizabeth’s heirs. The Sacramento County Public Administrator (the Public Administrator), acting as administrator of Sheila’s estate, objected, arguing the trust’s half interest in the sale proceeds should go to Sheila’s estate. The probate court concluded the trust’s interest in the house should be distributed to Elizabeth’s heirs, and the Public Administrator appeals that determination. Finding no error, we will affirm the probate court’s order. BACKGROUND The trust provided that Sheila would serve as successor trustee of the trust upon Elizabeth’s death and that Daniel would be the successor trustee if Sheila was unable to serve. Elizabeth died in 2013. Sheila recorded an affidavit of successor trustee, certifying that she was the successor trustee of the trust and that upon Elizabeth’s death the trust’s title to the house was now held by Sheila as successor trustee. Sheila also executed a quitclaim deed regarding a Calaveras County property held by the trust, transferring title (as provided by the trust) to Daniel as trustee of the David W. Gibson Irrevocable Trust. But Sheila did not transfer title of the trust’s interest in the Sacramento house to herself. Sheila died in 2019. Her half interest in the Sacramento house is part of her estate. Acting as successor trustee of the trust, Daniel filed a petition pursuant to Probate Code section 17200.2 The petition asked the probate court to instruct that proceeds from