Breslin v. Breslin - Case Brief

6 Mins read

Breslin v. Breslin

Case Number: B301382

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2021-01-26

Case Brief – Breslin v. Breslin

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Date: 2025-09-03
Case Number: B301382
Disposition: Judgment affirmed; costs awarded to respondents.

Holding

The court held that a party who receives notice of a court‑ordered mediation and fails to participate is bound by the settlement reached, thereby forfeiting any claim to be a trust beneficiary.

The appellate decision in Breslin v. Breslin underscores the binding effect of court‑ordered mediation in probate disputes and clarifies that non‑participation can constitute a forfeiture of substantive rights. When Don Kirchner died in 2018, his estate—valued between $3 million and $4 million—was held in a living trust that had been amended and restated in November 2017. The restated trust directed the remainder of the assets to the persons and charities listed on “Exhibit A,” yet no such exhibit was attached. Successor trustee David Breslin located a handwritten list of 24 charities in a binder, but the Pacific parties—nine nonprofit organizations that claimed to be prospective beneficiaries—never responded to his petition for clarification.

The probate court, invoking its broad discretion under Probate Code § 17206, confirmed Breslin as trustee and ordered mediation among all interested parties, including the intestate heirs and the listed charities. The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) sent mediation notices to everyone, explicitly warning that “non‑participating persons or parties who receive notice … may be bound by the terms of any agreement reached at mediation” and that “rights of trust beneficiaries or prospective beneficiaries may be lost by the failure to participate in mediation.” Five charities and the intestate heirs attended; the Pacific parties did not. The mediators produced a settlement that allocated specific sums to the attending charities, awarded attorney fees, and left the residue to the heirs, expressly excluding the Pacific parties.

Breslin moved to confirm the settlement. The Pacific parties objected, arguing that they were denied an evidentiary hearing, that the trustee breached fiduciary duties, and that the approval should be set aside for extrinsic fraud. The trial court rejected those objections, holding that the parties’ failure to appear at mediation amounted to a waiver of any claim to a hearing. On appeal, the Pacific parties contended that the standard of review should be de novo because the issue was not a factual finding. The Court of Appeal clarified that the probate court’s approval of a settlement is reviewed for abuse of discretion (Estate of Green (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d 25, 28), but noted that the result would be the same under any standard.

Relying heavily on Smith v. Szeyller (31 Cal.App.5th 450, 458)—which held that a party who declines to participate in a trial of a probate matter cannot later challenge the resulting settlement—the appellate court treated the court‑ordered mediation as an essential procedural step analogous to a trial. Because the Pacific parties received proper notice and chose not to attend, they forfeited both procedural and substantive rights. The court emphasized that Probate Code § 17206 empowers the court to condition evidentiary hearings on participation in mediation; a party’s refusal to engage therefore bars a later demand for a hearing on the merits. The court also rejected the Pacific parties’ reliance on Probate Code §§ 275 and 278, which govern written disclamers, noting that no disclaimer was filed and that forfeiture can occur through non‑participation.

Addressing the trustee’s fiduciary duties, the court found no breach. All interested parties were given notice and an opportunity to be heard. The trustee’s duty of impartiality under Probate Code § 16003 was satisfied because the failure to appear was not attributable to the trustee. Likewise, the duty to keep beneficiaries reasonably informed under § 16060 was met; the mediation notice itself provided the information necessary for the Pacific parties to protect their interests.

The appellate panel dismissed the extrinsic fraud claim. TMLC’s participation and request for attorney fees were grounded in the substantial‑benefit doctrine, not in any misrepresentation that would rise to fraud. Consequently, the settlement stood, and the trial court’s judgment was affirmed, with costs awarded to the respondents (the Pacific parties).

Impact and Unresolved Questions
Breslin reinforces that probate courts may compel mediation and bind absent parties who receive proper notice yet decline to participate. Practitioners should ensure that mediation notices are clear, conspicuous, and expressly state the consequences of non‑participation, mirroring the language used here. The decision also signals that courts will not entertain post‑mediation challenges based on alleged fiduciary breaches when the non‑participating party had the opportunity to intervene.

Nevertheless, the ruling leaves open questions about the adequacy of notice in more complex scenarios. For example, if a party can demonstrate that the notice was ambiguous or that logistical obstacles prevented attendance, courts may need to balance procedural efficiency against due‑process concerns. Additionally, the decision does not address whether a party that participates in mediation but later objects to the settlement on substantive grounds retains any right to an evidentiary hearing—a nuance that could surface in future disputes involving large or contested trusts.

Overall, Breslin v. Breslin provides a clear precedent that non‑participation in court‑ordered mediation can constitute a waiver of both procedural and substantive rights, shaping how probate practitioners advise clients about the strategic importance of attending every court‑mandated proceeding.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

  • Probate Code § 17206 – Court’s discretion to order mediation and set procedural requirements.
  • Probate Code § 16003 – Trustee’s duty of impartiality among multiple beneficiaries.
  • Probate Code § 16060 – Duty to keep beneficiaries reasonably informed.
  • Probate Code §§ 275, 278 – Requirements for a written disclaimer of beneficiary interest.
  • Substantial‑benefit doctrine – Basis for attorney‑fee awards when a party’s success benefits others.

Key Cases Cited

  • Smith v. Szeyller, 31 Cal.App.5th 450 (2019) – Non‑participation bars later challenges to settlement.
  • Estate of Green, 145 Cal.App.2d 25 (1956) – Abuse‑of‑discretion standard for probate settlement approvals.
  • Estate of Bennett, 163 Cal.App.4th 1303 (2008) – Evidentiary hearing rights when settlement is contested.
  • Salter v. Lerner, 176 Cal.App.4th 1184 (2009) – Scope of trustee’s informational duties.
  • Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, 12 Cal.4th 854 (1996) – Prohibition on raising new issues for the first time on appeal.