Rudnick v. Rudnick
Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District
102 Cal.Rptr.3d 493, 179 Cal.App.4th (2009)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Oscar Rudnick was the trustee of the Rudnick Estates Trust. Philip, Robert, and Milton Rudnick were beneficiaries of the trust, and together held a minority interest in the trust. The trust instrument provided that the trustee could not sell any trust asset unless approved by a majority of the trust beneficiaries. Oscar (plaintiff) petitioned the probate court to approve a sale of real estate held in the trust, which had been approved by a majority of the trust beneficiaries. Philip, Robert, and Milton (defendants) objected to the sale. The probate court ruled in Oscar’s favor and ordered him to complete the sale. The probate court also granted Oscar’s motion to recover attorney fees and costs and to charge that amount to Philip, Robert, and Milton’s future distributions from the trust. The probate court held that Philip, Robert, and Milton’s opposition to Oscar’s petition had not been made in good faith, but was an attempt to delay the sale. Philip, Robert, and Milton appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Levy, P.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
