Sutton v. Clark CA2/3

Filed 8/25/23 Sutton v. Clark CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

DAVID SUTTON, B322867

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 16STPB03303) v.

GEORGE D. CLARK, as Trustee, etc.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael Small, Judge. Affirmed. David Sutton, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Office of Cecil R. McNab and Cecil R. McNab for Defendant and Respondent.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

David Sutton appeals from a trial court order denying his trust petition filed pursuant to Probate Code section 17200 (section 17200 petition). Based on the limited record Sutton has provided on appeal, it appears that Sutton failed to respond to trustee George Clark’s special interrogatories requesting that Sutton identify witnesses and documents relevant to the claims raised in his petition. Clark accordingly filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude witnesses or documents Sutton might present at trial. The trial court granted the motion in limine, then denied the trust petition. We affirm the trial court order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Our review in this case is severely constrained by the limited record provided on appeal, which consists of a trial court docket, a motion and supplemental motion in limine, a one-page opposition to the motion in limine, two trial court orders, and the notice of appeal and designation of the record on appeal. From this record, we discern the following. In 2016, Sutton filed a petition to determine the existence of a trust. In 2019, he filed a subsequent petition for removal of trustee. In June 2021, the respondent and trustee, Clark, served a set of special interrogatories on Sutton. The interrogatories demanded that Sutton identify witnesses and documents supporting the allegations in his petition. It appears from the interrogatories that Sutton alleged, among other things, that Clark improperly transferred trust property to himself; he became trustee by defrauding the settlor; he wrongfully took or disposed of trust assets; and he violated his duties as trustee. In April 2022, Clark filed a motion in limine asserting Sutton willfully failed to respond to the interrogatories and seeking an order prohibiting Sutton from “calling any witnesses