Reported / Citable
Background
Priel Grimberg and her late husband Jacob created an irrevocable living trust in 2017, whose primary assets were two residential units in San Diego. After Jacob died in 2020, Priel—allegedly suffering from dementia—signed documents naming her niece Libby Pour as successor trustee. Priel’s son Arie later alleged that Pour had exploited the situation, diverting more than $188,000 in trust assets through unaccounted cash withdrawals and personal transfers, selling one unit at a below-market price, and allowing the other to fall into foreclosure.
The probate court appointed attorney Kevin Kravets as Priel’s guardian ad litem. After reviewing the trust accounts, Kravets sought and received court authorization in May 2024 to record lis pendens—a notice of pending action that clouds title—against Pour’s Los Angeles properties as security for a potential surcharge. Pour’s subsequent bankruptcy filings temporarily stayed the lis pendens, but after her fourth bankruptcy filing was dismissed in November 2024, Kravets sought and obtained a new order in January 2025 authorizing re-recording of the lis pendens.
Pour appealed the January 2025 order, arguing the probate court had no authority to authorize lis pendens because the probate proceedings did not involve a “real property claim” against her as required by the lis pendens statutes. The Court of Appeal asked the parties to brief the threshold question of whether the order was even appealable.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One dismissed the appeal outright. Code of Civil Procedure § 405.39 provides that “[n]o order or other action of the court under [the lis pendens chapter] shall be appealable.” The court held that this nonappealability rule applies in probate proceedings just as it does in ordinary civil actions.
Pour tried to invoke Probate Code § 1300, which lists orders that may be appealed in probate—including orders directing a fiduciary or authorizing encumbrance of property. The court rejected this argument, applying the canon that more specific statutes prevail over general ones. Probate Code § 1004 expressly subjects lis pendens in probate matters to the Code of Civil Procedure’s lis pendens framework, which includes § 405.39’s nonappealability rule. The general Probate Code appeal provisions cannot override that specific rule.
The court also noted the only proper remedy: a petition for writ of mandate filed within 20 days of written notice of the challenged order. Even exercising discretion to treat Pour’s appeal as a writ petition, the court would have denied it as untimely—she filed 60 days after the order, roughly 30 days past the outside 30-day deadline (the initial 20 days plus a possible 10-day extension). Costs were ordered borne by each party.
Key Takeaways
- In probate proceedings, orders authorizing or refusing to expunge a lis pendens are not directly appealable—Code of Civil Procedure § 405.39’s nonappealability rule controls over the Probate Code’s general list of appealable orders.
- The exclusive avenue for review is a petition for writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal, filed and served within 20 days of written notice of the order (with at most a 10-day extension). Miss this window and the order is effectively unreviewable.
- A party cannot manufacture appellate jurisdiction by skipping the expungement motion and directly appealing the order to record the lis pendens—the nonappealable nature of lis pendens orders cannot be circumvented by recharacterizing the challenge.
- Probate Code § 1004 expressly incorporates the Code of Civil Procedure’s lis pendens framework, meaning all CCP procedural rules—including nonappealability—apply when lis pendens arise in probate proceedings.
- For trustees or third parties facing lis pendens on their property in connection with a probate matter, the race to the courthouse is measured in days, not weeks.
Why It Matters
For estate planning and probate attorneys, this published opinion resolves a previously uncertain question: when a guardian ad litem or trustee obtains a lis pendens in probate court, the vehicle for challenging it is a writ of mandate—not a direct appeal—and the window is 20 days. Counsel advising trustees, successor trustees, or beneficiaries in contentious probate matters must build that deadline into case management plans from the moment a lis pendens order is served.
The case also illustrates how lis pendens can function as a powerful creditor’s remedy in trust litigation. When a trustee is facing surcharge claims and lacks a bond, a probate court can cloud title to the trustee’s personal real property to prevent asset dissipation—before any judgment is entered. Practitioners on both sides of trust disputes should understand this tool and the tight timeline for challenging it.