Sutherland v. Arent CA1/1

Filed 12/22/23 Sutherland v. Arent CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

CANDYCE K. SUTHERLAND, as TRUSTEE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A166632 (Lake County v. Super. Ct. Nos. PR502326 & BRIEN J. ARENT et al., CV418910) Defendants and Appellants.

After this court affirmed a judgment against appellants Brien Arent and Eva Keiser (Sutherland v. Arent (Mar. 24, 2022, A160404) [nonpub. opn.] (Sutherland I)), respondent Candyce Sutherland sought to recover her appellate costs. The trial court rejected appellants’ argument that the costs should be denied since the underlying judgment against them was “void.” In this memorandum opinion, we affirm.1 Sutherland and Arent are siblings, and Keiser is Arent’s longtime partner. After Arent and Sutherland’s father died in February 2017, yearslong litigation about their father’s estate followed. The trial court

1 A memorandum opinion disposes of cases that raise “no substantial

issues of law or fact,” including appeals that raise “factual issues that are determined by the substantial evidence rule.” (California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.)

1

appointed Sutherland trustee over the trust that contained the property of Sutherland, Arent, and their other two siblings’ late parents. Sutherland thereafter initiated unlawful detainer proceedings against both Arent and Keiser to remove them from their home, which was trust property. Following a brief trial, the trial court denied Sutherland relief after appellants produced a lease agreement that purported to permit them full access to the property. Sutherland filed a civil suit against both appellants to cancel the lease and for other relief. She also filed a petition for instructions in the probate action. The two cases were consolidated for trial. Arent and Keiser have been unrepresented throughout most of these proceedings. Keiser testified at the bench trial on Sutherland’s claims.2 She also took an active role in the trial, as she made arguments to the court and also questioned witnesses. At one point Sutherland’s trial attorney objected to Keiser raising an issue relevant to the probate proceeding since Keiser was not a beneficiary of the trust and thus not a party. Keiser argued that since the trust held property where she had been living for decades she “ha[d] a right to speak about being evicted and being put out on the street, and that whether it’s the successor trustee who’s doing it or a regular landlord who is doing it that is not a trustee, I still have a right to address those issues.” The trial court allowed Keiser to question the witness at issue. Following trial, the trial court concluded that the lease agreement appellants had presented was a forgery and that both appellants had misappropriated property belonging to the trust, and it granted Sutherland the discretion to sell trust property.