Wells Fargo Bank v. Stephan CA3

Filed 8/29/23 Wells Fargo Bank v. Stephan CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee, etc. C095797

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SPR0010389)

v.

DEBRA STEPHAN, as Beneficiary, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents;

LISA BARKETT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Lisa Barkett is one of three sibling beneficiaries of a family trust. She appeals from two orders entered by the probate court: (1) an order granting in part and denying in part the trustee’s petition for instructions: and (2) an order denying her motion for reconsideration of the probate court’s first order. We shall conclude that neither order is appealable. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the appeal.

1

I. BACKGROUND Sylvester and Margaret Denton, now deceased, established the Sylvester and Margaret Denton 1990 Revocable Trust (the Trust) in August 1990. The Trust designates Sylvester and Margaret’s three adult children—Barkett, Debra Stephan, and Diane Malcoun—as beneficiaries in equal one-third shares. Sylvester died in April 2013; Margaret died in November 2019. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo) became trustee of the Trust. Meanwhile, trouble was brewing between the beneficiaries. Stephan brought an action against Barkett and others in Los Angeles County Superior Court case No. 18STCV08722 (the Los Angeles action). As relevant here, the Los Angeles action asserts causes of action for fraud and breach of contract against Barkett and directly targets her one-third share of the Trust. Specifically, Stephan alleges Barkett orally agreed to assign her interest in the Trust to Stephan to repay a loan. Barkett denies the existence of any such oral agreement. Wells Fargo commenced the instant action by filing a petition for instructions pursuant to Probate Code section 17200.1 The petition sought instructions on several matters related to distribution of the Trust. Among other things, the petition sought guidance as to the timing of the distribution, which had become a point of contention between beneficiaries. According to the petition, Stephan, the plaintiff in the Los Angeles action, thought distributions could and should be made to Malcoun and herself, but Barkett should not receive anything so long as the Los Angeles action was