Faulkner v. Pringle CA4/1

Filed 12/26/23 Faulkner v. Pringle CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re Matter of: PRINGLE FAMILY TRUST, DATED APRIL 8, 2004, AS AMENDED D081866 JENNIFER FAULKNER,

Petitioner and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 37-2019-00045026- PR-TR-CTL) v.

STEPHEN PRINGLE,

Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Julia C. Kelety and Katherine A. Bacal, Judges. Affirmed. Jennifer Faulkner, in pro. per., for Petitioner and Appellant. HainesLaw and Laurence F. Haines for Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Jennifer Faulkner (Jenny) appeals a probate judgment declaring valid four transfer on death deeds (TODs) executed by her mother before her death. She claims on appeal (1) the judgment is premature, (2) the trial court erred in assigning her the burden of proof on her claim of undue influence, and

(3) the TODs are void for failure to comply with the notarization requirement. We find this matter appropriately resolved by memorandum opinion and affirm. (See generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847.) I. Decedent Heather Pringle and her predeceased husband were the only beneficiaries of the Pringle Family Trust (Trust). The primary assets of the Trust were four residential properties located in San Diego County. Jenny and Stephen Pringle are Heather’s only children. Heather suffered from health issues in the years preceding her death. In November 2018, Heather executed four TODs, one for each of the Trust properties, transferring three properties to Stephen and one to Jenny. Gabriel Mejia notarized the TODs. When Heather passed away in May 2019, Stephen became acting successor trustee of the Trust. In August 2019, Jenny petitioned for relief as to various issues concerning the Trust and the disposition of Heather’s estate. As relevant here, Jenny’s amended petition sought an order directing the properties Stephen received under the TODs to be transferred back to the Trust. She claimed Stephen unduly influenced their mother to transfer him more properties than Jenny. Judge Kelety bifurcated this issue for trial before Judge Bacal. After a four-day, unreported bench trial, Judge Bacal found: (1) neither Jenny nor Stephen fully credible, (2) Heather’s “clear” wish was for “a 50/50 split of her properties,” and (3) the undisputed testimony was that Stephen’s three properties were mortgaged while Jenny’s one property was “‘free and clear.’” Accordingly, the court found the TODs reflected Heather’s wishes and were not the product of undue influence, so it refused to order any properties returned to the Trust. The subsequent statement of decision noted “both