Court Opinion

ID: 9385659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-07 18:03:08.222182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:03.580794
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/7/23 Beltran v. Cruz CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 RAUL ANTHONY BELTRAN as Trustee, etc., et al,                                                 C094157

                    Plaintiffs and Respondents,                                     (Super. Ct. No. 34-2020-
                                                                                     00280922-PR-TR-FRC)
           v.

 BEATRICE CRUZ,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appellant Beatrice Cruz’s father executed an irrevocable trust, designating her
brother, respondent Raul Anthony Beltran (Tony), as the sole trustee and beneficiary.
The probate court entered an order confirming the trust and approving a settlement
agreement between Tony and appellant’s sister, respondent Linda Beltran concerning the
validity of the trust. Appellant afterwards filed a petition in opposition to the probate
court’s order. The probate court summarily denied appellant’s petition.
         On appeal, appellant contends the probate court erred in denying her petition
because Tony procured the trust by undue influence. Appellant further argues the

                                                             1
settlement agreement should have provided for her, citing an oral agreement she had with
Linda.1 We conclude the probate court’s order denying appellant’s petition is not
appealable and dismiss the appeal.
                                     BACKGROUND
       Appellant’s father executed an irrevocable trust, designating Tony as the trustee
and sole beneficiary of the trust. The trust explicitly disinherited appellant, Linda, and
appellant’s other brother Daniel.
       After their father’s passing, the three disinherited siblings disputed the validity of
the trust. Respondents agreed to mediate the dispute. According to appellant, prior to the
mediation, she, Daniel, and Linda agreed orally that they would divide any settlement
payment from Tony equally. The three then attended the mediation. At the time,
appellant believed Linda’s attorney also represented her, and the settlement agreement
would reflect her oral agreement with Linda.
       Following the mediation, Linda entered into a written settlement agreement with
Tony, whereby he agreed to pay Linda $100,000 from the proceeds of the sale of real
property held by the trust, and Linda agreed not to challenge the validity of the trust. The
settlement agreement contained an integration clause and explicitly excluded third party
beneficiaries. Neither appellant nor Daniel was a party to the settlement agreement, and
they did not receive any portion of the $100,000 settlement payment.
       On June 17, 2020, Tony petitioned under Probate Code section 172002 for an
order confirming the trust and approving the settlement agreement. The petition listed
appellant as one of the persons entitled to notice and stated appropriate notice would be
given. Appellant made no objection to the petition.

1      We refer to Linda Beltran and Daniel Beltran by their first names to avoid
confusion, and mean no disrespect.
2      Undesignated statutory references are to the Probate Code.

                                              2
        The probate court held a hearing on the petition on September 15, 2020.
Appellant received notice of the hearing, but as she later claimed, was unable to attend
due to technical difficulties. On November 30, 2020, the probate court entered an order
granting the petition. It is unclear from the record whether or when appellant was served
a copy of this order. On December 16, 2020, appellant and Daniel filed a “Petition in
Opposition To Order Confirming Irrevocable Trust and Petition for Order Approving
Settlement Agreement.” The petition claimed Tony procured the trust by undue
influence and the settlement agreement failed to divide the payment according to their
oral agreement with Linda. Appellant and Daniel requested the probate court to set aside
the affirmation of the trust, to reconsider the settlement, and to prevent the trustee from
disposing of the trust assets until the dispute is resolved. The probate court denied the
petition on April 6, 2021. Appellant failed to appear at the hearing, and there is no record
that her petition was served on all parties. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on May 6,
2021.
                                       DISCUSSION
        Appellant challenges on appeal the probate court’s April 6, 2021 order denying
her petition. Appellant claims Tony exerted undue influence on her incompetent father in
procuring the trust and argues the settlement agreement fails to include the earlier oral
agreement appellant had with Linda and Daniel. We dismiss the appeal because the
probate court’s order is not appealable.3
        It is settled law that there is no right to appeal from orders in probate proceedings
except those expressly made appealable by the Probate Code. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1,
subd. (a)(10); § 1304; Estate of Martin (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1438, 1441-1442.) “An

3      Because respondents failed to file a brief on appeal, we decide the appeal on the
record, the opening brief, and oral argument by appellant. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.220(a)(2).)

                                               3
order denying a motion for reconsideration is not among the orders made appealable by
the Probate Code.” (Estate of Stoddart (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1126.) This is
because “to allow an appeal from an order denying a motion for reconsideration would be
contrary to the Probate Code’s purpose to foster the expeditious resolution of estate
matters.” (Ibid.; see § 17209 [“The administration of trusts is intended to proceed
expeditiously and free of judicial intervention, subject to the jurisdiction of the court.”].)
       Here, after the probate court confirmed the trust and approved the settlement,
appellant filed her petition, requesting the probate court to set aside its order. Despite
appellant’s choice of title, “ ‘[t]he nature of a motion is determined by the nature of the
relief sought, not by the label attached to it. The law is not a mere game of words.’ ”
(Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 187, 193.) Thus,
“regardless of the name, a motion asking the trial court to decide the same matter
previously ruled on is a motion for reconsideration.” (Powell v. County of Orange (2011)
197 Cal.App.4th 1573, 1577.) Because appellant’s petition requested the probate court to
reconsider its decision, we construe her petition as a motion for reconsideration. Such a
motion is not appealable under the Probate Code, and we dismiss the appeal accordingly.
       Appellant does not appeal the probate court’s November 30, 2020 order. In any
event, appellant has forfeited any claims of error regarding this order because she failed
to timely object despite having notice of respondents’ petition. (Premier Medical
Management Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th
550, 564 [“Failure to raise specific challenges in the trial court forfeits the claim on
appeal.”].)
                                       DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed. Because respondents did not file a brief and nothing in
the record suggests they incurred any costs on appeal, no costs are awarded. (Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)

                                               4
                                                    \s\                    ,
                                                McADAM, J.*

      We concur:

          \s\            ,
      HULL, Acting P. J.

          \s\              ,
      RENNER, J.

*       Judge of the Yolo County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant
to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                            5