Case Number: B335353
Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two
Date Filed: August 31, 2025
Holding
The court held that the probate court’s removal of Walter Martin as trustee was not subject to a procedural stay because his earlier, non‑appealable appeal did not halt further probate proceedings, and, absent any evidentiary record contradicting the trial court’s findings, the removal order was supported by substantial evidence and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
Narrative
Lead – In a decision that underscores the limited reach of appellate stays in probate matters, the California Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s removal of a trustee who had been suspended for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, emphasizing that a prior, non‑reviewable appeal does not freeze subsequent probate actions and that appellate courts must rely on the record before them when assessing a trustee‑removal order.
Procedural backdrop – Walter E. Martin, a pro se appellant, challenged a 2019 order that suspended him as trustee of the Gesner L. Martin Trust, a special‑needs trust created by his father, Gesner L. Martin, in 2011. After an unsuccessful motion to vacate that suspension, Martin filed an appeal in August 2023. The appellate division dismissed the appeal, holding that California Probate Code does not permit review of a denial of a motion filed under Code of Civil Procedure § 473. Consequently, the appellate court never acquired jurisdiction over that appeal, and the trial court retained authority to proceed.
In November 2023, the trust’s beneficiary—Rex Martin’s daughter, Chevon Martin Robinson—petitioned the Los Angeles County Superior Court to remove Walter Martin as trustee, alleging violations of court orders, failure to provide an accounting, and questionable loans between the trustee and the trust. The trial court, after a hearing in which the trust’s CPA testified (the transcript was truncated by technical failure), granted the petition, removed Martin, and appointed Robinson as successor trustee, ordering Martin to account for all trust assets from 2011 through November 2023. Martin appealed the removal order.
Issues presented – The appellate court addressed two questions: (1) whether the pending, albeit dismissed, appeal from the 2023 motion to vacate automatically stayed the probate court’s subsequent trustee‑removal proceeding; and (2) whether the trial court’s removal order was supported by substantial evidence or constituted an abuse of discretion.
Court’s analysis –
-
Stay of proceedings – The court reiterated the general rule that an appeal stays trial‑court actions under Code of Civil Procedure § 916, but clarified that a stay applies only when the appellate court has jurisdiction over the appeal. Because the August 2023 appeal was dismissed for lack of statutory authority, the appellate court never exercised jurisdiction, and therefore no stay was imposed. The court cited Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, emphasizing that a “stay protects appellate jurisdiction” and cannot be invoked where jurisdiction never attached. Consequently, the probate court was free to continue with the trustee‑removal proceeding.
-
Standard of review – The removal order is appealable under Probate Code § 1300(g). The appellate court applied the abuse‑of‑discretion standard: factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence; legal conclusions are reviewed de novo; and the trial court’s application of law is reversible only if arbitrary or capricious (see Estate of El Wardani (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 870).
The record contained no evidence contradicting the trial court’s findings. Martin offered no documentation of the trust instrument, no authenticated accounting, and no proof that the alleged “loans” were permissible. The court noted that Martin’s assertions of diligent administration and of a trust provision barring certain beneficiaries from serving as trustee were unsupported by any admissible evidence. Moreover, the appellate court stressed that “error is never presumed” and that “a judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct” when the record is silent (citing Gonzalez v. Rebollo (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 969).
The court also addressed Martin’s argument that the trial court lacked authority because the petition was not filed under Probate Code § 17200. It pointed out that a probate court may remove a trustee sua sponte when “good cause” exists, including breach of fiduciary duty or unfitness (Probate Code §§ 15642, 17200; Schwartz v. Labow (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 417). The appellate court therefore concluded that the trial court acted within its statutory power.
Disposition – With no evidentiary basis to overturn the trial court’s findings, the appellate court affirmed the order removing Walter Martin as trustee, confirmed Robinson’s appointment as successor trustee, and awarded costs to the respondent.
Closing analysis – This opinion reinforces two practical tenets for probate practitioners. First, an appeal that is procedurally defective does not automatically stay all related probate actions; counsel must verify that a stay exists before assuming protection of the status quo. Second, when challenging a trustee‑removal order, the burden rests squarely on the appellant to produce a contemporaneous record—accountings, trust provisions, and sworn testimony—because appellate courts will not infer error from absent evidence. The decision also clarifies that California probate courts retain broad discretion to remove trustees without a formal petition, provided “good cause” is shown, a point that may prompt trustees to be more proactive in complying with accounting orders and preserving documentary trails. Unresolved, however, is the extent to which technical failures in trial‑court transcripts (as occurred with the CPA’s testimony) affect the appellate record; the court’s reliance on the incomplete transcript suggests that parties must ensure complete, certified transcripts are entered into the record to avoid forfeiting evidentiary support on appeal.
Referenced Statutes and Doctrines
- Probate Code § 1300(g) – Appealability of trustee‑removal orders.
- Probate Code §§ 15642, 17200(b)(6)(7) – Court’s authority to remove a trustee and to supervise special‑needs trusts.
- California Code of Civil Procedure § 916 – Automatic stay of proceedings pending appeal.
- California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a) & (b) – Publication restrictions on unpublished opinions.
- California Rules of Court, rule 8.137 – Requirement for settled statements when transcripts are unavailable.
Key Cases
- Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180 – Scope of appellate stays.
- Estate of El Wardani (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 870 – Abuse‑of‑discretion standard in probate appeals.
- Gonzalez v. Rebollo (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 969 – Presumption of correctness absent record error.
- Schwartz v. Labow (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 417 – Court’s power to remove a trustee sua sponte.
- Conservatorship of Presha (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 487 – Probate court intervention to prevent fiduciary abuse.