Case Number: B335353_markdown
Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two
Date Filed: August 31, 2025
Holding
The court held that the probate court did not err in removing Walter E. Martin as trustee of the Gesner L. Martin Trust, that the removal order was appealable under Probate Code § 1300(g), and that, absent any evidentiary record contradicting the trial court’s findings, the lower court’s factual determinations were supported by substantial evidence and its exercise of discretion was not arbitrary or capricious.
Narrative
A California appellate panel affirmed a Los Angeles County probate court’s decision to strip Walter E. Martin of his fiduciary role over the Gesner L. Martin Trust, underscoring the limited scope of appellate review when the trial record is thin and the statutory framework grants courts broad authority to intervene in trust administration.
Procedural backdrop
The dispute began in 2018 when Chevon Martin Robinson, daughter of the trust’s beneficiary Rex Martin, petitioned the probate court to establish a conservatorship for her father. Although the petition itself is not part of the appellate record, the court’s subsequent actions—freezing the trust’s assets, ordering Martin to provide an accounting, and suspending him as trustee—set the stage for the later removal hearing. Martin, who had served as trustee since 2012, never objected to the court’s jurisdiction over the trust, nor to the asset freeze, and the record shows no formal objection to the accounting order.
Four years after his suspension, Martin filed a motion to vacate the 2019 order. The motion was denied in July 2023 on the ground that the appellant offered no evidence to disturb the earlier finding. Shortly thereafter, Robinson filed a petition to remove Martin as trustee, alleging violations of court orders and failure to account for trust assets, including questionable loans between Martin and the trust. At the November 9, 2023 hearing, the court heard testimony from the trust’s CPA—though technical difficulties truncated the transcript—and noted that Robinson had not received a copy of the trust instrument from Martin. The court granted Robinson’s petition, appointed her successor trustee, and ordered Martin to produce a full accounting and deliver all trust assets.
Martin appealed, contending that the probate court should have been stayed because of a pending appeal from his earlier motion to vacate, and that the removal order was unsupported by the record.
Key issues
- Whether the probate court’s proceedings were automatically stayed by Martin’s earlier, albeit dismissed, appeal.
- Whether the order removing Martin as trustee was appealable and, if so, whether the appellate court should overturn it for abuse of discretion.
Court’s analysis
Stay of proceedings
The appellate panel turned first to California Code of Civil Procedure § 916, which provides a stay of trial‑court action when an appeal is filed. The court distinguished Martin’s prior appeal—filed in August 2023 from a denial of a motion to vacate a 2019 order—as non‑appealable because Probate Code does not permit appeals from denials of motions under CCP § 473. The panel cited Conservatorship of Martin, B333262 (non‑pub. dismissal order Aug. 12 2025), confirming that the lower court never acquired jurisdiction over that appeal. Consequently, the probate court was free to proceed, and the “appeal futile” doctrine from Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180 did not apply.
Review of the trustee removal
Under Probate Code § 1300(g), an order removing a trustee is appealable. The appellate court applied the standard articulated in Estate of El Wardani (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 870, reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence, legal conclusions de novo, and the exercise of discretion for arbitrariness or capriciousness.
The record, however, offered scant evidence. No authenticated copy of the trust instrument was attached, and the CPA’s testimony was incomplete. The appellant offered no documentary proof that he had complied with the court’s accounting order, nor did he produce evidence of the alleged “viable alternatives” to his removal. The panel emphasized that appellate courts must presume the trial court’s findings correct when the record is silent, citing Gonzalez v. Rebollo (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 969 and In re Hochberg (1970) 2 Cal.3d 870.
The court also noted that California probate courts possess inherent authority to remove a trustee sua sponte when “good cause” exists, per Probate Code §§ 15642 and related case law (Schwartz v. Labow (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 417). Robinson’s petition, though not filed under § 17200, satisfied the statutory threshold because the court found evidence—albeit limited—of breach of fiduciary duty and failure to account.
Given the absence of any evidentiary challenge, the appellate panel concluded that the probate court’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The order was therefore affirmed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.
Implications for probate practice
The decision reinforces two practical truths for California probate practitioners. First, an appeal that is procedurally defective does not automatically stay all related probate proceedings; counsel must verify that an appeal is proper before assuming a stay. Second, when seeking to remove a trustee, the burden of proof lies heavily on the challenger to produce a robust record. Courts will rely on the existing record and will not infer error from the absence of evidence.
The ruling also highlights the importance of preserving a complete transcript, especially when technical glitches threaten the integrity of the record. Parties should request continuances to resolve such issues, lest the appellate court be forced to decide on an incomplete evidentiary foundation.
Unresolved questions remain regarding the scope of a conservatorship petition’s impact on trust administration. While the appellate court presumed the probate court’s jurisdiction over the trust, the petition itself was not part of the record, leaving open the question of whether a conservatorship proceeding can, by itself, confer authority to intervene in a special‑needs trust without a separate petition under Probate Code § 17200. Future litigants may seek clarification on the interplay between conservatorship and trust‑administration powers.
Referenced Statutes and Doctrines
- Probate Code § 1300(g) – Appealability of trustee removal orders.
- Probate Code §§ 15642, 17200(b)(6)(7) – Court authority to remove trustees and to order accounting.
- California Code of Civil Procedure § 916 – Automatic stay of trial‑court proceedings upon appeal.
- CCP § 473 – Grounds for relief from judgments; not appealable in probate context.
Key Cases Cited
- Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180 – Stay of proceedings and “appeal futile” doctrine.
- Estate of El Wardani (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 870 – Standard of review for probate court orders.
- Gonzalez v. Rebollo (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 969 – Presumption of correctness absent record.
- In re Hochberg (1970) 2 Cal.3d 870 – Limits on appellate review of trial‑court findings.
- Schwartz v. Labow (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 417 – Court’s inherent power to remove a trustee sua sponte.
- Conservatorship of Martin, B333262 (non‑pub. dismissal order Aug. 12 2025) – Non‑appealability of certain probate motions.
- Conservatorship of Presha (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 487 – Probate court intervention to prevent financial abuse.