Dunlap v. Mayer - Case Brief

Dunlap v. Mayer

Case Number: D077561

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2021-04-23

Case Brief – Dunlap v. Mayer

Court: COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Date: 2025-09-04
Case Number: D077561
Disposition: The appellate court reversed the probate court’s dismissal order and remanded for further proceedings; costs were awarded to the appellant.

Holding

The court held that the estate, as successor‑in‑interest to Josephine Mayer’s beneficiary interest, possessed standing to seek an accounting of the Marital Trust, and that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the petition at a case‑management conference without notice, an evidentiary hearing, or completion of discovery.

The petition for an accounting of the Marital Trust, filed by the estate of Joseph A. Mayer, thrust a decades‑old family trust into the spotlight of California probate jurisprudence. At issue was whether the estate—representing the deceased beneficiary Josephine—could compel the trustee, Maria E. Mayer, to produce an accounting of trust assets that allegedly had never been funded, and whether a probate court could summarily dismiss such a petition without the procedural safeguards required by the Probate Code. The appellate reversal underscores the courts’ commitment to substantive due process in trust disputes and clarifies the scope of standing for successor‑in‑interest parties.

Procedural backdrop. Josephine Mayer, the lifetime income beneficiary of a testamentary “Marital Trust” created by her late husband Erwin Mayer, died in 2016. Erwin’s 1995 will had established the trust, and a subsequent settlement agreement—approved by the San Diego probate court—named Maria Mayer as sole trustee and designated Erwin’s 99 % interest in Peterson & Ross Limited Partnership (P&R) and his stock in Fillmore Mercantile, Inc. (FMI) as trust assets. The estate of Josephine, represented by executor John T. Dunlap, filed a petition under Probate Code §§ 17200‑17206 for an accounting covering the period from Erwin’s death through Josephine’s death. Maria Mayer objected, asserting she had never acted as trustee, never possessed the trust assets, and that the funding entities were defunct.

The trial court held a case‑management conference in January 2020, noted the estate’s incomplete discovery, and—without prior notice that dismissal was a possible outcome—dismissed the petition pursuant to §§ 17202 and 17206. The estate appealed, arguing lack of standing and procedural error.

Key legal issues.

Standing of the estate. Does an estate, as successor‑in‑interest to a deceased beneficiary, have standing to seek an accounting under Probate Code § 17200?
Procedural propriety of dismissal. May a probate court dismiss a contested petition at a case‑management conference without an evidentiary hearing, notice, or completion of discovery?

Court’s analysis.

Standing. The appellate court turned to Probate Code § 24, which defines “beneficiary” to include any person with a present or future interest, vested or contingent, and expressly embraces successors in interest. Citing Barefoot v. Jennings (2020) 8 Cal.5th 822, the court emphasized the Legislature’s intent to give probate courts broad jurisdiction over disputes between trustees and anyone claiming beneficiary status. Because Josephine’s right to an accounting survived her death—per the survivability doctrine articulated in Elliott v. Superior Court (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 825—the estate, as her successor‑in‑interest, could assert that right. The court affirmed that the estate’s standing was proper under §§ 17200 and 24, and that the cause of action survived Josephine’s death under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 377.20(a) and 377.30.

Procedural error. The court examined the procedural requirements of the Probate Code, particularly §§ 1042 and 1046, which mandate notice and a hearing when a matter is contested. The trial court’s reliance on Maria’s verified objection—laden with statements of “information and belief” and “to the best of her knowledge”—was insufficient because the facts were disputed. Under Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667, contested petitions demand competent evidence, not merely untested declarations. The appellate court noted that dismissal of an entire petition is not an “incidental issue” within the court’s discretion under § 17206; rather, it is a final determination that requires the procedural safeguards of a hearing on the motion to dismiss. The lack of notice that dismissal could be considered at the conference violated the statutory notice requirement and constituted an abuse of discretion, echoing the standards set in Gregge v. Hugill (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 561.

Holding and disposition. Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the dismissal, remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Probate Code, and awarded costs to the appellant.

Implications for probate practice. This decision reinforces two pivotal principles. First, it confirms that an estate may step into the shoes of a deceased beneficiary to enforce accounting rights, extending the reach of § 17200 beyond living parties. Practitioners should recognize that successor‑in‑interest standing is robust, especially where the underlying beneficiary interest was vested during life. Second, the ruling cautions probate judges against procedural shortcuts at case‑management conferences. Even where discovery is incomplete, courts must provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before disposing of a contested petition. The decision aligns with a broader trend—seen in Schwartz v. Labow (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 417 and Christie v. Kimball (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1407—affirming the court’s inherent supervisory power but limiting it to procedural due process.

Unresolved questions linger. The appellate opinion did not address the substantive question of whether the Marital Trust was ever funded, leaving that factual dispute for the remand. Additionally, the opinion skirts the issue of whether a trustee who “never took title” can still be deemed a fiduciary for purposes of accounting, a point that may surface in future litigation involving nominal trusteeship. Practitioners should monitor how lower courts handle evidentiary thresholds for trustee liability when the trustee’s control over assets is contested.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

Probate Code §§ 17200, 17202, 17206 (standing, dismissal, discretionary powers)
Probate Code § 24 (definition of “beneficiary”)
Probate Code § 1000 (application of civil procedure rules)
Code of Civil Procedure §§ 377.20(a), 377.30 (survivability of causes of action)
Probate Code §§ 1042, 1046 (notice and hearing requirements)

Major Cases Cited

Barefoot v. Jennings, 8 Cal.5th 822 (2020) – expansive standing under § 24
Gregge v. Hugill, 1 Cal.App.5th 561 (2016) – abuse of discretion standard
Elliott v. Superior Court, 265 Cal.App.2d 825 (1968) – survivability of beneficiary actions
Estate of Lensch, 177 Cal.App.4th 667 (2009) – evidentiary requirements in contested petitions
Schwartz v. Labow, 164 Cal.App.4th 417 (2008) – court’s supervisory power over trusts
Christie v. Kimball, 202 Cal.App.4th 1407 (2012) – sua sponte accounting requests
Conservatorship of Becerra, 175 Cal.App.4th 1474 (2009) – definition of abuse of discretion
Lee v. An, 168 Cal.App.4th 558 (2008) – notice requirements for dismissal at conferences
Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc., 158 Cal.App.4th 1582 (2008) – caution against procedural shortcuts.