Breslin v. Breslin

Case Number: B301382A

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2021-04-05

Case Brief – Breslin v. Breslin

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Date: 2025-09-03
Case Number: B301382
Disposition: The judgment (order) is affirmed. Costs are awarded to respondents.

Holding

The court held that a party who receives proper notice of a probate‑court‑ordered mediation and chooses not to participate is deemed to have forfeited any right to contest the settlement reached at that mediation; consequently, the settlement is binding on the non‑participating party.

Narrative

A California probate dispute over the disposition of a multimillion‑dollar living trust turned on the intersection of trust‑administration duties and the enforceability of court‑ordered mediation. David Breslin, appointed successor trustee of the Don F. Kirchner Living Trust, petitioned the Ventura County Superior Court to confirm his appointment and to determine the trust’s beneficiaries. The trust, dated July 27 2017 and restated on November 1 2017, directed that the remainder of the estate be distributed to the persons and charitable organizations listed on “Exhibit A.” No Exhibit A accompanied the restated trust, but a handwritten list of twenty‑four charities—found in a binder alongside the restated trust—appeared to fulfill that requirement.

Breslin served notice of the petition on all listed charities, including a coalition of advocacy groups that later organized as the “Pacific parties” (Pacific Legal Foundation, Judicial Watch, Save the Redwoods League, and others). Only three charities filed formal responses; the Pacific parties remained silent. The trial court confirmed Breslin as trustee and, invoking Probate Code § 17206, ordered the parties to mediate the beneficiary determination. The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), one of the responding charities, dispatched mediation notices to every interested party, explicitly stating 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 mediation; the Pacific parties did not. The mediators facilitated a settlement that allocated specific sums to the attending charities and awarded the residue to the intestate heirs. The settlement excluded the Pacific parties entirely. TMLC filed a petition to approve the agreement; the Pacific parties, upon learning of the petition, filed objections and sought to set aside the settlement on grounds of due‑process violations, alleged fiduciary breaches, and extrinsic fraud.

The appellate court, reviewing the probate court’s approval of the settlement, applied the “abuse of discretion” standard prescribed by Estate of Green (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d 25, 28. The court emphasized that the probate court possessed unfettered authority under § 17206 to order mediation and to condition further procedural rights on participation in that mediation. Citing Smith v. Szeyller (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 450, 458, the majority held that a party who declines to engage in a court‑ordered settlement process cannot later challenge the resulting agreement. The court rejected the Pacific parties’ argument that a written disclaimer under Probate Code §§ 275, 278 was required to forfeit rights, finding that the mediation notice itself created a constructive waiver.

The majority also addressed the trustee’s fiduciary duties. Under Probate Code § 16003, a trustee must act impartially among beneficiaries. The court concluded that Breslin fulfilled this duty because all interested parties received equal notice and the opportunity to participate; the Pacific parties’ non‑participation was a self‑inflicted limitation, not a breach by the trustee. Likewise, the alleged breach of the duty to keep beneficiaries reasonably informed (§ 16060) was satisfied by the mediation notice, which disclosed both the procedural requirement and the consequences of non‑participation.

The dissent, authored by Justice Tangeman, warned that the majority’s approach elevates procedural forfeiture above the testator’s expressed intent, potentially allowing a probate court to extinguish charitable gifts that the decedent deliberately designated. The dissent invoked Newman v. Wells Fargo Bank (1996) 14 Cal.4th 126, 134, emphasizing that “the paramount rule” in trust administration is fidelity to the settlor’s wishes, and cautioned that imposing costly mediation as a condition of inheritance may contravene due‑process protections articulated in Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194.

Despite the dissent’s concerns, the majority affirmed the probate court’s judgment, reinforcing the principle that court‑ordered mediation is an integral component of probate proceedings and that parties who ignore duly served notices forfeit both procedural and substantive rights.

Impact and Unresolved Issues
Breslin solidifies California’s stance that mediation, when ordered by a probate court, carries the same binding effect as a trial‑court judgment for parties who receive proper notice. Practitioners must now ensure that all potential beneficiaries are not only served with mediation notices but also that the notices unmistakably articulate the forfeiture consequences of non‑participation. The decision also raises questions about the balance between procedural efficiency and the preservation of a testator’s intent, especially where charitable gifts are at stake. Future litigation may test the limits of this forfeiture doctrine, particularly in cases where the notice language is ambiguous or where a party can demonstrate that the mediation process itself was fundamentally unfair.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

Probate Code §§ 17203, 17206 – Court’s authority to order mediation and to set procedural conditions.
Probate Code §§ 16003, 16060 – Trustee’s duties of impartiality and to keep beneficiaries reasonably informed.
Probate Code §§ 275, 278 – Disclaimer requirements (distinguished by the court).
Probate Code § 9837 – Court approval of settlement agreements.
Substantial‑benefit doctrine – Basis for attorney‑fee awards (see Smith v. Szeyller).

Major Cases Cited