Beltran v. Cruz CA3

Filed 4/7/23 Beltran v. Cruz CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

RAUL ANTHONY BELTRAN as Trustee, etc., et al, C094157

Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. 34-2020- 00280922-PR-TR-FRC) v.

BEATRICE CRUZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Beatrice Cruz’s father executed an irrevocable trust, designating her brother, respondent Raul Anthony Beltran (Tony), as the sole trustee and beneficiary. The probate court entered an order confirming the trust and approving a settlement agreement between Tony and appellant’s sister, respondent Linda Beltran concerning the validity of the trust. Appellant afterwards filed a petition in opposition to the probate court’s order. The probate court summarily denied appellant’s petition. On appeal, appellant contends the probate court erred in denying her petition because Tony procured the trust by undue influence. Appellant further argues the

1

settlement agreement should have provided for her, citing an oral agreement she had with Linda.1 We conclude the probate court’s order denying appellant’s petition is not appealable and dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND Appellant’s father executed an irrevocable trust, designating Tony as the trustee and sole beneficiary of the trust. The trust explicitly disinherited appellant, Linda, and appellant’s other brother Daniel. After their father’s passing, the three disinherited siblings disputed the validity of the trust. Respondents agreed to mediate the dispute. According to appellant, prior to the mediation, she, Daniel, and Linda agreed orally that they would divide any settlement payment from Tony equally. The three then attended the mediation. At the time, appellant believed Linda’s attorney also represented her, and the settlement agreement would reflect her oral agreement with Linda. Following the mediation, Linda entered into a written settlement agreement with Tony, whereby he agreed to pay Linda $100,000 from the proceeds of the sale of real property held by the trust, and Linda agreed not to challenge the validity of the trust. The settlement agreement contained an integration clause and explicitly excluded third party beneficiaries. Neither appellant nor Daniel was a party to the settlement agreement, and they did not receive any portion of the $100,000 settlement payment. On June 17, 2020, Tony petitioned under Probate Code section 172002 for an order confirming the trust and approving the settlement agreement. The petition listed appellant as one of the persons entitled to notice and stated appropriate notice would be given. Appellant made no objection to the petition.