Staley v. Woodgrift CA2/6

Filed 7/3/13 Staley v. Woodgrift CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

KERI M. STALEY, as Special Trustee, etc., 2d Civil No. B240835 (Case No. 56-2011-0397502- Plaintiff and Appellant, PR-TR-OXN) (Ventura County) v.

BEVERLY D. WOODGRIFT, as Trustee, etc.,

Defendant and Respondent.

This is a dispute between the surviving spouse and her stepdaughter over the meaning of a family trust. The stepdaughter petitioned the trial court for instructions regarding the trust. We modify the trial court's judgment to require the surviving spouse to allocate half of the appraised value of the personal property to the subtrust created for the benefit of the stepchildren. We also reverse and remand for further proceedings on whether property acquired by the spouses in joint tenancy after the trust's creation is to be deemed withdrawn from the trust. We otherwise affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Kenneth and Beverly Woodgrift created the Woodgrift Family Trust (Trust) in May 2000.1 Kenneth passed away nearly 10 years later. As the Trust required, Beverly divided up the Trust's assets into two subtrusts: (1) a Survivor's Trust consisting of Beverly's half of the "Trust Estate"; and (2) an Exemption Trust consisting of "the balance" of the "Trust Estate." (Art. III, §§ 1-5.) Beverly became the Trustee of the Survivor's Trust. Keri M. Staley, one of Kenneth's children from a prior marriage, became the Special Trustee of the Exemption Trust. (Art. IX, § 2b.) Keri filed a petition with the trial court seeking instructions on eight different provisions of the Trust. The trial court declined to provide instructions on one of the issues, but resolved the remaining issues largely in Beverly's favor. DISCUSSION We independently review the trial court's interpretation of a trust and other written instruments. (Johnson v. Greenlesch (2009) 47 Cal.4th 598, 604.) I. Keri's Authority as Special Trustee of the Exemption Trust The Trust provides that Beverly, as the surviving spouse, is entitled to "all of the net income" from the Survivor's Trust and the Exemption Trust. (Art. III, § 7a.) Beverly is also entitled to use the principal of those subtrusts' assets as she "deems necessary for [her] proper health, support, and maintenance." (Id., § 7b.) However, "before making any principal distributions" from the Exemption Trust if assets remain in the Survivor's Trust, Beverly "must obtain the approval of the Special Trustee" of the Exemption Trust. (Ibid.) The Special Trustee of the Exemption Trust exists "solely for the purpose of approving any discretionary distributions of principal from [that Trust] for the benefit of [Beverly.]" (Art. IX, §1b.) Keri contends that, as Special Trustee, she is authorized and obligated to (1) confirm that the Exemption Trust was correctly funded at its creation; (2) review all