Faulkner v. Pringle CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Jan 18, 2024 No. D081866MUnpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment declaring four transfer on death deeds (TODs) valid, finding that the appellant failed to meet her burden of proving undue influence and that the deeds were not void due to the notary's status. The court further held that the interlocutory judgment was appealable under the Probate Code despite not being a final judgment.

Issues

Whether the trial court's judgment was premature under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1591(a).
Whether the trial court erred in assigning the appellant the burden of proof for her undue influence claim.
Whether the TODs are void due to the notary's lack of a valid commission.
Whether the interlocutory judgment is appealable.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the challenged ruling, albeit not a final judgment, is nonetheless appealable.”

“the general rule that someone who challenges an instrument bears the burden of proving undue influence applied.”

Filed 1/18/24 Faulkner v. Pringle CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING Respondent. NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed on December 26, 2023, be modified as follows: On page 4, at the end of section II, subsection A, and immediately preceding subsection B, a new paragraph is added that reads as follows:

To be clear, our conclusion that the challenged ruling was an interlocutory judgment or order but not a final judgment does not divest this court of jurisdiction. The Probate Code makes certain orders appealable beyond the one final judgment rule. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1,

subd. (a)(10).) The word “order” “generally embraces . . . interlocutory directions or commands,” and “the appealability of an order of the probate court is determined not from its form, but from its legal effect.” (Black’s Law Dict. (11th ed. 2019); Estate of Martin (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1438, 1442.) In disposing of Jenny’s claim of undue influence and declaring the TODs valid, the challenged ruling “[a]djudicat[ed] the merits of a claim made under Part 19 (commencing with Section 850) of Division 2” (Prob. Code, § 1300, subd. (k)), “approv[ed ]or confirm[ed]” the “conveyance[ ] . . . of property” (id., § 1300, subd. (a)), and finally decided at least one claim in a petition “concerning the internal affairs” of a trust (id., §§ 1304, subd. (a), 17200). Thus, the challenged ruling, albeit not a final judgment, is nonetheless appealable.

There is no change in judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied.

Faulkner v. Pringle CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN PRINGLE,

CASTILLO, J.

DATO, J.

AI Brief