6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/06/04 Morning Session - Jun 04, 2026

argument

6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/06/04 Morning Session

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 1h 42m 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 is the purpose of today’s oral argument and who are the parties involved?

Unknown 6:38

Good morning. Please be seated and welcome to the Sixth District Court of Appeal for oral argument this morning. This morning, the court has four matters on calendar, two of them. The first two are being considered together, and there will be panel changes between the cases, and so you will see some justices depart and others join. We also have some arguing this morning who are appearing remotely. And for the benefit of those who are sitting in the audience, I want to let you know that you'll be able to hear everything that is occurring, but we don't have a screen here in the courtroom for you to see those who are appearing remotely. If you would like both the audio and the visual experience, we have live streaming in the waiting room.

Unknown 7:21

You can step out there. We also, however, record all oral arguments. And it will be posted to our website almost immediately after the OA sessions. And so you can access the visual experience there as well. Of course, at council table, there are devices so that those who are appearing remotely will be visible. And we're able to see them up here on the bench. As a final note on technology, the justices on the bench have access to our laptops. So if you see us looking off to the right, we have the briefs, our notes. the record, anything that we need to access for argument this morning, we have available. Give me just a moment to get situated and we will start the calendar.

Unknown 8:23

Matters 1 and 2 are being considered together, H052411, H052415, John Chestnut et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants versus William Robert Chestnut et al., Defendants and Respondents. William Robert Chestnut et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants versus Chestnut Identity Apparel Inc. et al., Defendants and Appellants. Appearing this morning for appellants remotely, I believe.

Jacob Hollars 8:53

Yes, Your Honor.

Unknown 8:55

If you could state your appearance and confirm your time estimate, please.

Jacob Hollars 8:58

Yes, Your Honor. Jacob Hollars on behalf of the appellants. And I anticipate 10 minutes for my primary argument and reserve five minutes for rebuttal.

Unknown 9:09

All right. And appearing for respondents this morning.

Aaron Mohamed 9:13

Good morning, Your Honor. Aaron Mohamed for respondents.

Unknown 9:15

I'm going to actually have you go to the podium. I should have warned you because otherwise it doesn't get picked up on the recording.

Aaron Mohamed 9:21

Very good. There's just an adjustment here, right?

Unknown 9:27

I think that might be as high as it goes.

Aaron Mohamed 9:30

Good morning, Your Honors. Aaron Mohamed for respondents, defendants William Chestnut and Gerilyn Chestnut. Likewise, ten minutes, please, for presenting argument, five minutes for rebuttal.

Unknown 9:41

All right. Thank you very much. And so, Mr. Mohamed, if you'll have a seat, we'll hear first from Mr. Holler's.

Jacob Hollars 9:52

Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning, Justices, counsel, and may it please the court. As an initial matter, I'm going to refer to the individual parties by their first names for ease of the record because everyone shares last names and a couple of the parties share the same first name and very similar middle names.

Unknown 10:10

Understood.

Jacob Hollars 10:10

Thank you. Jonathan, thank you. These two cases being argued today arise from the unfortunate deterioration of the Chestnut family's relationship after the father, Bill Sr., was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, unfortunately. In case number H052411, this court should reverse for two reasons. First, it erred in denying John and Bill Jr. a constructive trust for two reasons. The District Court found that the Superior Court, excuse me, the Superior Court found that Bill Jr. and John had relied on a promise from Bill Sr. The Superior Court admittedly did say that promise was somewhat uncertain, but it did find that the promise at the very least was that they could live in the family's 18,000 square foot dream home as long as they wished.

Jacob Hollars 11:00

They relied on that promise to their detriment by giving years and years and years of free substantial labor to both finance the acquisition of the home and construct much of it. As I'll detail later, this was air because, again, the promise was that they could live there as long as they pleased. Not so long as Bill Sr.