Filed 5/9/16 Taubman v. U.S. Bank, N.A., Trustee CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 SEVEN

ANNE C. TAUBMAN et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

U.S. BANK, N.A., Trustee,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B267154

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BP066539)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Maria E. 

Stratton, Judge. Reversed and remanded.

Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs Howard Avchen & Shapiro LLP, Barry E. Fink and 

Elizabeth G. Chilton for Defendant and Appellant. 

No appearance for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

____________________________
2

In what should have been the final chapter of a long story, the probate court was 

presented with the request for an order finalizing the proceedings. Through a series of 

procedural problems, the court made an order, but then entered a judgment that did not 

reflect its ruling. Although trustee U.S. Bank promptly sought correction, the steps 

necessary to resolve the problem were not taken in a timely manner. As the record 

clearly demonstrates that the order should be vacated, we reverse, and remand for the 

probate court to enter an order consistent with its ruling.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

In light of the fact that this appeal involves an order as to which there is no 

dispute, the factual summary relates only to the events surrounding that order.

On July 6, 2012, U.S. Bank, the Trustee of The Janice L. Taubman 1990 

Revocable Trust (Trustee), filed a petition to wind up the trust, pay legal fees and 

expenses, approve the Trustee’s accounting, distribute assets, and permit the Trustee to 

resign. The Trustee filed a supplement to the petition on September 4, 2012, providing 

further information as to distributions that had been made. After the hearing on the 

petition was continued, the Trustee filed a second supplement to the petition, providing 

additional information about distributions and supplementing the accounting.

The court heard the petition on December 23, 2014, and issued a ruling on 

February 2, 2015. That ruling, however, did not include information provided in the 

supplements to the petition, and appeared instead to rely on superseded probate notes. 

The Trustee sought clarification in a filing made on February 13, 2015. Beneficiary 

Anne Taubman1 also objected to the February order, and agreed that it failed to address 

the recent filings. The court heard her motion on April 14, 2015, and denied it on 

May 28, 2015. The court granted the Trustee’s motion for clarification in an order dated 

July 6, 2015.

 

1 There are two beneficiaries of the trust, Anne Taubman and her brother Richard 

Taubman. In this opinion, we will use Taubman to refer to Anne, as the judgment at 

issue was filed on her behalf.
3

Although Taubman had affirmatively asserted that the February 2 order did not 

reflect recent developments in the case, she submitted a proposed judgment based on that 

order. That proposed judgment was inconsistent with the July 6 ruling, but favorable to 

her financial position. The Trustee timely filed an objection.

On July 23, 2015, the court signed the proposed judgment submitted by Taubman, 

notwithstanding the inconsistency between that judgment and the July 6 order. Taubman

promptly served notice of entry, and demanded satisfaction of the judgment. 

The Trustee moved to vacate the judgment on August 5, 2015; Taubman opposed

the motion. The court set the matter for hearing, and stayed enforcement of the 

judgment. The motion to vacate was argued on August 17, 2015, and the court took the 

matter under submission. Because the time to appeal the judgment was expiring, the 

Trustee filed this appeal on September 28, 2015.2

The probate court issued a minute order on November 2, 2015, granting the 

Trustee’s petition and its request the July judgment be vacated. The court acknowledged 

that the February 2 order had been based on outdated notes, confirmed the July 6 order, 

and confirmed that the judgment had been signed in error. The court ordered the Trustee 

to submit a new proposed judgment.

The court signed the order vacating the prior judgment on November 20, 2015 and 

the Trustee lodged a proposed judgment on December 15, 2015. The court has not 

entered the new judgment.

DISCUSSION

At the time the Trustee filed its motion to vacate the judgment, and at the time of 

the hearing, the probate court had the jurisdiction and the authority to act on the 

judgment. However, after the Trustee filed the notice of appeal on September 28, 2015, 

the court was divested of jurisdiction. 

 

2 While Taubman acknowledged throughout these proceedings that the February 

order was inconsistent with the facts that existed at that date, she nonetheless declined to 

agree to ask the court to vacate the judgment premised on that order, and insisted this 

appeal was required. Taubman did not file a respondent’s brief on appeal.
4

As in other civil cases, a probate court generally loses jurisdiction to act with 

respect to a judgment on appeal. (Kane v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1577,

1584.) In limited circumstances, defined by Probate Code section 1310, subdivision (b), 

the trial court may retain jurisdiction to make orders to prevent injury or loss; this 

exception, however, is narrowly construed. (Gold v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 275,

282 [exception requires “an affirmative showing . . . of extraordinary circumstances 

involving potential loss or injury”].) The Trustee made no showing below, nor has it 

argued here, that the exceptional circumstances required to invoke this authority are 

present in this case.

The Trustee is correct, however, in arguing that at the time the motion to vacate 

was filed and heard, the court did have both the jurisdiction, and the authority, to vacate a 

judgment that did not conform to the terms of its own order. A court “has the inherent 

power to correct clerical errors in its records so as to make those records reflect the true 

facts. (In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705.) “[A] trial court has power to correct 

mistakes and to annul orders and judgments inadvertently or improvidently made.” 

(Bastajian v. Brown (1941) 19 Cal.2d 209, 214 (Bastajian).) While a court cannot amend 

a judgment to correct judicial error, that the error here was clerical, and thus within the 

court’s authority, cannot be disputed. 

First, we look to the court’s own statement as to its intent in making the new 

order; it is the court making the order that is in the best position to know that intent. 

Here, the court made clear that the July judgment was not reflective of its order, and was 

signed in error.

Next, reviewing the nature of the claimed error, where the minute order, which is 

evidence of the intent of the decision, is inconsistent with the judgment, we may infer the 

error was in signing the judgment, and thus clerical in nature, rather than an error in the 

ruling itself. (Bastajian, supra, 19 Cal.2d at pp. 210-215.)

The Trustee urges us to confirm the authority of the probate court to vacate the 

judgment in this case and to enter a new judgment that conforms to the actual order of the 

court. Citing the cases permitting a court to correct clerical error, the Trustee ignores the 
5

critical fact in this case: at the time the court ordered the judgment vacated, the Trustee 

had already appealed that judgment, divesting the court of the authority to take the action 

the Trustee sought. However, because it is clear from the record, from the positions 

taken by the parties in the probate court, and from the court’s own rulings that the merits 

of this matter have been resolved, we will reverse the judgment signed in error and 

remand the matter so that the probate court may enter the judgment it ordered prepared 

on November 2, 2015.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is reversed and the matter remanded for entry of a judgment 

consistent with the court’s order of November 2, 2015, and for any further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion. Appellant shall recover its costs on appeal.

ZELON, Acting P. J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J.

BLUMENFELD, J.

 



Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.