John Edward Williams v. Robert A. Tinkham, William D. Williams, James A. Williams, Julia J. Margrave, as individuals and individually and as Trustees and in Behalf of Wilda Williams Trust, and Does 1 through 20, inclusive
Published: Aug. 6, 2016 | Result Date: Jul. 8, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 30-2016-00846676-PO-OR-CJC Bench Decision – Defense
Court
Orange Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
William A. Elliott
(William A. Elliott Attorney at Law)
Facts
John Williams sued Robert Tinkham, William Williams, James Williams, and Julia Margrave, individually and as Trustees and in behalf of Wilda Williams Trust, involving a property located in Anaheim.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
: Defendants allegedly entered into an agreement to sell the subject property without plaintiff's consent and in violation of the Trust and the parties' agreement. Plaintiff claimed that in so doing, defendants breached their duty of fiduciary to plaintiff. Plaintiff also claimed that the sale constituted a breach of the agreement. Plaintiff sued defendants for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary, and violation of the Trust. Plaintiff also recorded a lis pendens on the property.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants denied the allegations and filed a cross-complaint, alleging indemnification, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief, and conversion of trust property.
Plaintiff allegedly moved into the subject property about a decade ago with Wilda Williams, his mother and the primary owner of the property. Lally Thau had lived with plaintiff at the property for about two years. Defendants contended that plaintiff and Thau had allegedly never paid rent to the Trust, but were collecting rent from a tenant, and failed to provide defendants with an accounting.
In 2016, defendants received a cash offer for the purchase of the property, which they accepted. Plaintiff then filed this instant lawsuit and recorded a lis pendens. Defendants alleged that the complaint and lis pendens lacked specificity. As such, defendants moved to expunge the lis pendens. Defendants argued that a beneficiary, like plaintiff, does not need to approve a sale of trust assets because such sale was the solely the trustees' duty.
Result
The trial court expunged the lis pendens plaintiff recorded on the subject property.
Other Information
According to defense, plaintiff has been living rent-free on the trust property since his mom passed in June 2014. He sued and tied up the trust real property with a Lis Pendens, which was expunged July 9. Defense has also filed and served a UD and has requested a trial date, plaintiff is holding up the escrow, which defense contends would give him a large sum. Defendants are also evicting the other tenants who pay him rent. Defendants' CMC and motion for fees and costs (for the expungement) per CCP 405.38, is set for Aug. 26. FILING DATE: April 18, 2016.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390