Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Helen M. Ogassian created the Restated Helen M. Ogassian Living Trust on January 21, 2020, a trust revocable during her lifetime that became irrevocable upon her death. Helen served as trustee, with her son Daniel named as successor trustee and her daughter Nadine Jakovich as alternate successor trustee. The trust initially held five Southern California real estate parcels plus accounts, investments, and personal property. Under the trust terms, upon Helen's death Ronald was to receive the Winchester and Tujunga properties, Daniel the Louise property, Jakovich the Pioneer property, and Ronald's son Jared $50,000.
On January 16, 2021, Helen executed deeds transferring all five properties out of the trust: the Winchester and Tujunga properties to Ronald, the Pioneer property to Jakovich, the Louise property to Daniel, and the El Caminito property to Jakovich and Daniel. In June 2022, Jakovich, Daniel, and Helen entered a confidential settlement agreement in a partition action; the El Caminito property was sold in November 2022 and the proceeds distributed under the agreement. Helen died on August 1, 2023.
On September 24, 2024, Ronald filed a petition under Probate Code section 17200 seeking removal of Daniel as trustee and an accounting of trust assets. After four evidentiary hearings, the probate court found that Helen had disposed of all trust property before her death and denied the petition with prejudice on November 10, 2025. Ronald appealed. The Court of Appeal filed its opinion on September 22, 2026, then on October 14, 2026 issued an order modifying footnote 5 to state that Ronald makes no claim on appeal that Helen's disposition of assets resulted from incapacity or undue influence, denying rehearing, and making no change in the judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed the probate court's order denying Ronald's petition for an accounting. During the period a trust is revocable, the trustee owes no duties to the beneficiaries, whose interest is merely contingent. Because Helen was both settlor and trustee until her death and disposed of all trust assets during her lifetime, no assets remained upon her death for which an accounting could be compelled.
The court relied on Babbitt v. Superior Court: although beneficiaries of an irrevocable trust may petition for an accounting after the settlor's death, the probate court lacks authority to order an accounting for assets and transactions while the trust was revocable, where the settlor served as trustee and no incapacity or undue influence is claimed. Substantial evidence supported the finding that Helen transferred all five parcels in January 2021 and disposed of the remaining assets before her death.
The court rejected Ronald's due process argument that the probate court erred by initially denying the petition without prejudice and later denying it with prejudice outside the parties' presence, holding that an evidentiary hearing satisfied due process and no ruling in the parties' presence was required. It also found Estate of Giraldin distinguishable because there the settlor was not the trustee. Daniel was awarded his costs on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A settlor who serves as trustee of a revocable trust owes no duties to beneficiaries during the revocable period and may dispose of all trust assets without justifying those actions.
- Beneficiaries cannot use Probate Code section 17200 to compel an accounting for transactions while a trust was revocable if the settlor was trustee and no incapacity or undue influence is claimed.
- An appellant's failure to provide a record of the trial court hearings leads to a presumption that the findings are correct and typically results in affirmance.
- Due process requires some kind of hearing before a person is finally deprived of property interests, but not that the court issue its ruling in the parties' presence.
- On rehearing, the court modified footnote 5 of its opinion without changing the judgment and denied the petition for rehearing.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that beneficiaries of a revocable trust have no enforceable right to trust assets or an accounting during the settlor's lifetime when the settlor serves as trustee. Even after the settlor's death and the trust's conversion to irrevocable status, beneficiaries cannot reach back to obtain accountings for dispositions made during the revocable period absent allegations of incapacity or undue influence.
The case also shows the importance of an adequate appellate record: Ronald's failure to provide transcripts of the four evidentiary hearings meant the Court of Appeal presumed the probate court's findings correct and affirmed. It confirms that due process is satisfied by the opportunity for a hearing, not by any particular procedure for announcing the ruling.