5DCA Oral Argument - 2026/03/19 - Mar 19, 2026

argument

5DCA Oral Argument - 2026/03/19

California Fifth District Court of Appeal 2h 44m 8 chapters transcribed 9 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What case is being presented and who are the parties?

Richard Marcus 0:00

For the state of California uh district, now in seven.

Unknown 0:04

Good morning. Be seated, please.

Unknown 0:15

The first case we have on calendars F089775, Tilly versus Merino Marino. Just date your appearances for the record.

Richard Marcus 0:25

Yes, good morning. My name is Richard Marcus and I represent the appellant Bonnie Tilly. Trustee of the Miller Pitcher Tross.

Joshua Wilson 0:32

And good morning. My name is Joshua Wilson. Uh appearing for the respondents, Omar and Christina Moreno.

Unknown 0:39

Uh Mr U Marcus, how much time do you wish to reserve for your reply?

Richard Marcus 0:46

Three minutes, please.

Unknown 0:47

Three minutes, all right. Go ahead, sir, when you are ready.

Richard Marcus 0:50

Thank you. I may indulge of the court. I'd like to um speak for about three minutes before I take any questions. Um I

How does counsel argue the resulting‑trust and breach‑of‑trust issues?

Richard Marcus 0:59

Would like to point to the court's attention first. Uh one of the cases that I cited on my brief, it's Alan V. Myers, nineteen thirty six, five cow, second three eleven. Which is probably completely dispositive of the the largest issue in this case. And I'm gonna follow that with a a citation to two restatements of trust seconds. That's two eighty nine and two eighty-four. So the facts of uh Allen are pretty uh interesting. Um, wife was on her deathbed. She had uh two daughters from a prior marriage. And uh husband said you're going to die in a couple of days. Uh transfer the property to me and I'll give it to your daughters to avoid probate. So that happened in Nightin Nainet of November. He holds on to the property until nineteen thirty-two.

Richard Marcus 1:54

And then right before he dies, he transfers it to his own daughter. And the issue before the court of appeal was абсолютно супрем корт в Калифорнії. What happens when you have An innocent transferee who has no knowledge of the breach of trust but pays no consideration for the property. And what the court held is that they take the property subject to the trust and that a resulting trust um results from that. Now, the interesting thing is Myers is a nineteen thirty six case. This restatement of trust comes along in nineteen fifty nine. So uh when I did my research on this to try and find cases that discussed uh the restatement of trust. I did not find uh Alan V. Myers because it w wasn't in in

Richard Marcus 2:44

Uh the that case wasn't available then. So, but what the restatement of trust says section two eighty nine don't e. If the trustee in breach of trust Transfers the trust property and no value is given for the transfer. The transferee does not hold the property free of the trust. Although it had no на інос of the trust. So uh although there was no notice of the trust. So that that's exactly the same thing. And if the court takes a look at two hundred eighty nine, it's gonna see a whole bunch of cases besides Alan V. Myers and other jurisdictions that adopts that rule. The companion restatement of trust is two eighty four. And what two hundred eighty-four does is to paraphrase it, if you take for value and without notice, you hold the property free of the trust.

Richard Marcus 3:37

uh because you're a bona fide purchaser for value and that's what the section is. Uh there's one other case that was cited that I did cite. It's another case Alan, Alan V. Hussey, nineteen fifty case. One on one Calab second four fifty. Seven and that's uh a a third take on the same thing. That's when you have notice of the breach and you pay value. And in that case, uh Uh You um don't take the property free of the trust. So uh again, a resulting trust is formed. Um Which leads me to The next issue, and then I'm happy to take any questions of the court. As I also indicated in my brief All of the causes of action are against the Marenos for the simple fact that they're indispensable parties. They have to be because they're holding the property.

Unknown 4:33

Always count one and count two against the Marinos.

Richard Marcus 4:36

They because all three causes of action are brought under eight fifty. Of the probate code requesting the return of property in the Moreno's hands, every single one of those causes of action on. Not just the first two. Um There are allegations that are in The uh Petition specifically Give me a second, I'll find them for you.