Opinion ID: 1436870
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Indemnification provision

Text: (21a) Finally, defendants complain that the trial court erred in awarding Mitzi any future damages which she or Ann's estate may incur by reason of Sam's acts, and requiring defendants to indemnify her and Ann's estate from any such liability. Defendants claim that this portion of the judgment exceeds the issues litigated by the parties and adjudicates conjectural and premature matters not properly before the court. As we have seen, however, the record indicates that Sam, as executor of Ann's estate, may have wrongfully claimed the federal marital deduction by concealing the existence of the oral agreement. It is possible that by reason of his acts, the taxing authorities may attempt to impose penalties in the matter. (22) Under such circumstances, the trial court, sitting in equity, had the power to adjust all the differences between the parties arising from the cause of action in order to do complete justice and prevent further litigation, whether or not the particular relief was requested. ( Sears v. Rule, 27 Cal.2d 131, 149 [163 P.2d 443]; see Coons v. Henry, 186 Cal. App.2d 512, 519 [9 Cal. Rptr. 258].) (21b) The trial court herein did no more than determine that Mitzi should not share responsibility for Sam's acts, retaining jurisdiction to make such further orders as may be necessary to protect her interests in the event claims are filed against either her or Ann's estate, of which she was a principal beneficiary. The judgment is modified by striking therefrom the award of post-judgment interest upon any stocks found to have been delivered by defendants to plaintiff in compliance with the terms of the judgment. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed and the cause is remanded to the Los Angeles County Superior Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Plaintiff shall receive her costs on appeal.