1DCA Division 5 Oral Argument - 2025/10/23 - Oct 23, 2025

argument

1DCA Division 5 Oral Argument - 2025/10/23

California First District Court of Appeal 1h 41m 7 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the purpose of the oral argument and who are the parties involved?

Unknown 0:03

All rise. The Court of Appeal for the State of California, First Appellate District, Division V is now in session. The Honorable Terry L. Jackson presiding, with Associate Justices, the Honorable Mark V. Simons and the Honorable Gordon V. Burns.

Terrielle Jackson 0:20

Please be seated. Good morning everyone.

Terrielle Jackson 0:30

As you've already heard, I am Justice Terrielle Jackson. I'm here with Justice Um well on video is Justice Mark Simons and Justice Gordon Burns. The first matter on this calendar is the Louisa. Um Ben's wan w excuse me, Ben's winger. versus Linda and I'm going to mispronounce the name so I apologize. As I often said, it took me five years to pronounce my ex-husband's name, the operative word X, and by that time I divorced him. So um Garvinte Clovis and Marie Elder. Can I please have the attorneys state their appearances, starting with the appellant.

Patrick Burns 1:18

Good morning, Your Honors. Patrick Burns on behalf of appellant Louisa Binswanger, and I'm joined by my colleague Baya Forsyth.

Joseph Hurst 1:24

Very

Patrick Burns 1:24

good.

Joseph Hurst 1:27

Good morning, Your Honor. Uh Joseph Hurst for respondent Marie Adler.

Terrielle Jackson 1:31

Very good.

Nicholas Maxwell 1:35

Nicholas Maxwell for respondents Linda Garaventa Colvis and Joseph Garaventa.

Terrielle Jackson 1:41

And I believe you received the court's tentative in this case. Yes. And in the tentative it set forth um The um time which would be ten minutes for each side for the appellate. Um, how would you like to divide your time? Oh excuse me, that's right. So there will not be any rebuttal. So There won't be any time to divide up. So you'll just argue. That will be it.

Nicholas Maxwell 2:10

Okay. Um I I thought we would divide our point between the respondents. Um I would like to take a maximum of five minutes. I only have one point to make, and to the extent I finish before five minutes, I'll yield my remaining time to Mr. Hurst.

Terrielle Jackson 2:25

I see. Thank you very much. That's correct. We did send out a an order in terms of how the respondents were to ar that the respondents were gonna argue first and how you were gonna divide your time. This is a an appeal dealing with the court's order where the trustee um dealing with the distribution of the shares of the family business and so respondent. You may proceed.

Nicholas Maxwell 2:58

May please the court, counsel. It is respondents' position that the tentative opinion does not address the main issue in this appeal, which is not whether the trust allows Louisa to sell the company. The issue is whether what the probate court did is within the probate court's discretion to oversee trust administration. The probate courts order Required Louisa to act consistently with her prior representations of how she would administer the trust. Which the court and the beneficiaries had relied on for years to their detriment. Our statement of facts thoroughly describes the numerous times Louisa represented to the beneficiaries and the court that she would distribute the shares of GE by the end of twenty twenty four.

Nicholas Maxwell 3:50

We determine. Council

Unknown 3:51

uh Council, if I may um ask How do we evaluate uh what you say the court decided Um in the uh absence or without Evaluating what The Trust. Required. Uh That is The court itself. Rested its decision. on its understanding of what the language of the trust uh reflected. about the intent of The settler married. Um and Don't we have to do the same? Here.

Nicholas Maxwell 4:39

Thank you, Your Honor. Um I believe a fundamental principle of Appellate Review is that the Court of Appeals does not review the reasons for the trial court's ruling if the court's ruling is correct on any theory. Even one not mentioned by the court. And even if the court made its ruling for the wrong reason The ruling must be affirmed. And that's an important principle because the construction of the trust is completely unnecessary to the probate court's ultimate action. which was taken to oversee administration of the trust. If the po if the probate court had excluded from its analysis any mention of the construction of the trust and simply ordered that Louisa distribute the shares by the end of January in line with her prior representations.

Nicholas Maxwell 5:31

The question would be was that action within the probate court's discretion to oversee trust administration?