Thornton v. Thornton CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D064445 · 2014-06-24 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. 37-2013-00034838-PR-TR-CTL
Trial judge: Jeffrey S. Bostwick
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: probate
Panel: Gilbert Nares (author), Alex C. McDonald, O'Rourke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:39Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Sean Thornton's petition to remove his mother as trustee and compel the distribution of trust funds, finding she had not breached her duties. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the trustee did not abuse her discretion in refusing to pay funds directly to the incarcerated beneficiary, as the trust granted her broad, incontestable discretion over distributions.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition to remove trustee and compel distribution of trust funds “Sean cannot show that Mary abused her discretion in refusing to pay money directly to him while he was incarcerated.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The trust instrument explicitly grants the trustee 'sole and incontestable discretion' regarding payments and allows for the establishment of an annuity in lieu of direct payments. Under California law, courts do not interfere with such discretionary powers unless the trustee acts dishonestly, with improper motive, or beyond the bounds of reasonable judgment. The record shows the trustee offered an alternative (annuity) and cited the beneficiary's incarceration as a reason for withholding direct cash, which falls within the scope of reasonable judgment and does not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Authorities

relied: Manson v. Shepherd (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1244 — Establishes the abuse of discretion standard of review for probate court orders under Probate Code section 17206.
relied: Hearst v. Ganzi (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1195 — Courts will not interfere with a trustee's discretion unless the trustee acts dishonestly, with an improper motive, fails to use judgment, or acts beyond the bounds of reasonable judgment.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly identifies the abuse of discretion standard and applies the specific terms of the trust instrument, which explicitly grants the trustee incontestable discretion and the option to use an annuity. The court properly concludes that the trustee's decision to withhold direct cash payments in favor of an annuity for an incarcerated beneficiary does not rise to the level of dishonesty or unreasonableness required to constitute an abuse of discretion.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

The San Diego probate court denied Sean Thornton's petition under Probate Code sections 16420 and 17200 seeking to compel his mother, Mary Ann Thornton, as trustee of his separate share trust, to distribute up to $51,000 to him while he was incarcerated and to remove her as trustee for breach of trust. The Court of Appeal, applying an abuse of discretion standard under section 17206, affirmed, holding that the trust instrument vested payment decisions in the trustee's sole discretion, expressly authorized an annuity in lieu of direct payments, and that Sean could not show the trustee acted dishonestly, with improper motive, or beyond the bounds of reasonable judgment.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition to compel the trustee to distribute trust funds directly to beneficiary (finding of no breach of trust) “Sean cannot show that Mary abused her discretion in refusing to pay money directly to him while he was incarcerated.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The third amendment gave the trustee discretion over payments for Sean's health, education, support and maintenance, directed her to consider other resources readily available to him, declared her decisions final and incontestable, and expressly authorized an annuity in lieu of discretionary payments. Mary chose the annuity option and offered to pay third parties for education, so the record quoted shows no dishonesty, improper motive, failure to exercise judgment, or unreasonable judgment under the Hearst v. Ganzi standard. The opinion does not discuss Probate Code section 16081's limits on 'sole' or 'absolute' discretion, and it somewhat conflates review of the trustee's discretion with review of the trial court's discretion, but the result follows on this record.
Denial of request to remove Mary as trustee under Probate Code sections 16420 and 17200 “Sean attempted to remove his mother, Mary Ann Thornton (Mary), as trustee of the Anne Frances Prusa Trust (the trust), based upon his allegation that she committed a breach of trust by refusing to provide him funds under the trust.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The removal request was predicated entirely on the alleged breach of trust in withholding direct payments. Because the court found no abuse of the trustee's discretion and thus no breach, the removal claim necessarily failed; the opinion does not separately analyze removal grounds under section 15642, but no separate ground was alleged.

Authorities

relied: Manson v. Shepherd (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1244 — A probate court's order disposing of matters presented by a trust petition under Probate Code section 17206 is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
relied: Hearst v. Ganzi (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1195 — Courts will not interfere with discretion conferred on a trustee unless the trustee acts dishonestly, with an improper motive, fails to use judgment, or acts beyond the bounds of reasonable judgment.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly identifies the abuse of discretion standard, reads the trust's express grant of sole discretion and annuity option, and applies the Hearst v. Ganzi test to conclude the trustee acted within her authority. It is brief, does not describe the trial court's reasoning, does not address Probate Code section 16081's good-faith limits on 'incontestable' discretion, and blurs the distinction between the trustee's discretion and the trial court's discretion, though none of these gaps affects the outcome on the facts stated.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 6/24/14 Thornton v. Thornton CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SEAN DAVID THORNTON, D064445

Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2013-00034838- PR-TR-CTL) MARY ANN THORNTON, Individually and as Trustee, etc., Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jeffrey S.

Bostwick, Judge. Affirmed.

Sean David Thornton, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Offices of Kenneth H. Miller, Kenneth H. Miller, Michael I. Miller; Law Offices of Gregory Y. Lievers, Gregory Y. Lievers and Lorin R. Clark for Defendant and Respondent. This appeal arises from the denial of Sean David Thornton's (Sean's)1 petition in probate court for a distribution under a trust. Sean attempted to remove his mother, Mary Ann Thornton (Mary), as trustee of the Anne Frances Prusa Trust (the trust), based upon his allegation that she committed a breach of trust by refusing to provide him funds under the trust. The probate court denied his petition.

Sean, who is currently incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison, and appears in this action in propria persona, appeals, asserting he has a right to funds from the trust for his health, support, education and maintenance. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Trust Mary is the daughter of the settlor, Ann Francis Prusa (settlor), and Sean is the son of Mary and the grandson of the settlor. Sean has been incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison since 2011.

The trust was created in 1988. A third amendment to the trust was executed in 2010. Pursuant to that third amendment the settlor could amend or revoke the trust in whole or in part at any time during her lifetime. Moreover, of relevance to this appeal, the third amendment gave the trustee wide discretion as to payments to Sean:

"At any time or times during the trust term, the trustee shall pay to or apply for the benefit of Sean as much of the net income and principal of the trust as the trustee deems proper for Sean's health, education, support, and maintenance. In exercising discretion, the trustee shall give the consideration that the trustee deems proper to 1 Because the parties share the same last name, in the interests of clarity we refer to them by their first names. We intend no disrespect. 2 all other income and resources that are known to the trustee and that are readily available to Sean for use for these purposes. All decisions of the trustee regarding payments under this subsection, if any, are within the trustee's discretion and shall be final and incontestable by anyone. . . . [¶] The trustee may choose, in their sole and incontestable discretion, to use any remaining proceeds from the principal and income of the Separate Share Trust for Sean, to purchase an annuity or some similar plan for Sean, in lieu of making discretionary payments to Sean, to provide payments to Sean over his lifetime or over a course of years as determined by the trustee." (Italics added.)

In February 2012, shortly before the settlor's death, a fourth amendment to the trust was executed. That fourth amendment appointed Mary as trustee of the trust. The fourth amendment also provided that, after various payments were made, 25 percent of the remaining trust property would be distributed into a separate trust for the benefit of Sean, and the remaining 75 percent would be distributed to Mary. The fourth amendment also provided that Mary would act as trustee for Sean's trust.

The settlor passed away in March 2012. In November of that year Sean wrote to Mary, asking for funds to support himself while he was incarcerated. According to Sean, the funds would be used to buy "a TV, radio, package, and money to go to the store"

while in prison. Mary responded that she would not distribute trust funds directly to him until he was released from prison, at which time an annuity would be established and monthly payments provided to him.

3 B. The Petition In February 2013 Sean filed his initial petition. Thereafter, in May 2013 Sean filed an amended petition, under Probate Code2 sections 16420, subdivision (a)(1) & 3, and 1700, subdivision (a)(3) seeking, among other things, to have Mary removed as trustee for allegedly breaching her duties by not sending him funds to which he was entitled. Specifically, Sean sought "any amount not to exceed [$51,000]" in order for him to "take college courses on business, secure funds to support his welfare, i.e., clothes and shoes; cosmetics for his hygiene; and proper food for his health and nutrition from packages and canteen ['store']."

Mary responded to the petition, asserting that she had the discretion whether to make payments to Sean and that he was provided meals and housing by the state while incarcerated. Mary also stated that she was not opposed to making payments to third parties in order to allow him to pursue his education goals, but would not give funds to him directly.

The court denied the petition.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review "The court in its discretion may make any orders and take any other action necessary or proper to dispose of the matters presented by the petition, including appointment of a temporary trustee to administer the trust in whole or in part."

2 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Probate Code. 4 (§ 17206.) Accordingly, the standard of review in this matter is abuse of discretion.

(Manson v. Shepherd (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1244, 1258.)

B. Analysis Sean cannot show that Mary abused her discretion in refusing to pay money directly to him while he was incarcerated. The trust explicitly states, in the third amendment, that Mary has the discretion to determine how and when monies would be paid to him. It does not require that money be paid directly to him. It also expressly states that Mary has the option of setting up an annuity to provide for his needs, which Mary chose to do.

Courts will not interfere with the discretion given a trustee, except to prevent the trustee from abusing it. (Hearst v. Ganzi (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1195, 1208.) "If discretion is conferred upon the trustee in the exercise of a power, 'the court will not interfere unless the trustee in exercising or failing to exercise the power acts dishonestly, or with an improper even though not dishonest motive, or fails to use his judgment, or acts beyond the bounds of a reasonable judgment.' " (Id. at p. 1209.) Sean cannot show that Mary acted in this manner in exercising her discretion pursuant to the terms of the trust.

5 DISPOSITION

The order denying Sean's petition is affirmed. Mary shall recover her costs on appeal.

NARES, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

McDONALD, J.

O'ROURKE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

Manson v. Shepherd No. H034019 · 2010-09-03
Hearst v. Ganzi B184659 · 2006-12-19