Skytte v. Skytte CA4/3

Filed 2/27/24 Skytte v. Skytte CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

BIRTHE B. SKYTTE et al.,

Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and G061364 Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2017-00902820) v. OPINION CHRISTIAN SKYTTE et al., Individually and as Trustees, etc.,

Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Walter P. Schwarm, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Thomas M. McIntosh and Thomas M. McIntosh for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants. Law Office of David E. Libman, David E. Libman; Jeff Lewis Law, Jeffrey Lewis, Sean C. Rotstan and Kyla Dayton for Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents.

Christian Skytte and his wife Catherine J. Skytte (appellants) challenge the trial court’s denial of their motion to set aside the voluntary dismissal and settlement of this action. Among other things, they claim the court abused its discretion by denying their request to continue the hearing on the motion. Because they fail to address the court’s reasons for denying their motion and because they provide an inadequate record as to their claimed continuance request, they cannot establish error in the court’s rulings. We therefore affirm. FACTS In 2017, Birthe B. Skytte, trustee of the Skytte Family Trust and Christian’s 1 mother, sued appellants in connection with a property on State Avenue in Costa Mesa. Appellants countersued, adding other family members as cross-defendants. In 2018, the parties settled and dismissed their competing claims. Under the settlement agreement, Birthe was to lend appellants $230,000, secured by a deed of trust on the State Avenue property. If Birthe died before the loan was paid off, the balance was to be satisfied with amounts appellants would be entitled to receive as beneficiaries of the trust. The parties dismissed their respective claims. In 2021, appellants moved to vacate the dismissal of the action under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 and the superior court’s equitable powers, claiming the dismissal and settlement were the result of their mistake and extrinsic fraud by Birthe, among other grounds. They claimed that Birthe “had committed fraud and/or concealed pertinent and relevant facts and circumstances regarding the management, disposition, hypothecation and liquidation of [trust] assets,” and in particular, that she may have “improperly invaded” two trust properties on American Avenue in Costa Mesa.