Stahl v. Brannon CA1/5

Filed 9/29/23 Stahl v. Brannon CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

WILLIAM STAHL,

Petitioner and Appellant, A161831 v. (Solano County Super Ct. KATHERINE BRANNON, No. FPR049636) Trustee and Respondent.

Appellant William Stahl challenges two orders awarding attorney fees to respondent Katherine Brannon, who has moved this court to sanction appellant for filing a frivolous appeal. The first order, issued on February 26, 2020,1 accompanied the granting of respondent’s motion to expunge a lis pendens pursuant to section 405.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The second order, issued on October 5, followed the denial of appellant’s petition under Probate Code sections 16420, subdivision (a), and 17200, subdivision (b)(12). We affirm both orders because the first is not appealable and the probate court acted within its discretion with respect to the second. However, we decline to impose sanctions on appellant, whose arguments are not so unreasonable as to be frivolous.

1 All subsequent dates refer to the year 2020.

1

I. BACKGROUND Respondent is the trustee of the Edward Stahl and Dolores M. Stahl Revocable Trust, whose beneficiaries include her brother, appellant. The trust owns two parcels of real property located on neighboring lots in Vacaville. The legal dispute began when appellant filed a self-styled “petition for enforcement of the terms of the trust, appointment of alternative trustee, appointment of temporary trustee, instructions to trustee, breach of trust, [and] breach of fiduciary duty.” (Capitalization omitted.) In that petition, he alleges that respondent had pursued a scheme to sell the real property to her son at a discounted price, thereby breaching her fiduciary duty as a trustee and endangering the interests of the trust’s beneficiaries. Next, appellant recorded a lis pendens against the property. Respondent moved to expunge the lis pendens and, “in accordance with” Code of Civil Procedure section 405.38, requested that “the court award [her] reasonable attorney fees” and costs in the amounts of $3,150.00 and $130.00, respectively. (Capitalization omitted.) On February 26, the probate court granted respondent’s motion to expunge the lis pendens and awarded attorney fees as requested. Between February 26 and October 5, in addition to several declarations, petitioner filed the following four motions: (1) a cross-motion to appoint an agent, a professional fiduciary, receiver or temporary trustee to substitute for the trustee to sell the property; (2) an amended and restated petition for relief from breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duty by trustee (Prob. Code, §§ 16420, subd. (a), 17200, subd. (b)(12)); (3) a request for a declaration of a common fund and a finding of breach of a fiduciary duty due to self-dealing; and (4) a motion to instruct the trustee and enforce the terms