Asaro v. Maniscalco - Case Brief

10 Mins read

Case Number: D080874
Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One
Date Filed: 2025‑08‑31

Case Brief – Asaro v. Maniscalco

Court: COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ANTHONY ASARO, D080874 (Consolidated with D081481) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2015- JON JOSEPH MANISCALCO et al., 00034908‑PR‑TRL‑CTL) Defendants and Appellants. CONSOLIDATED APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert C. Longstreth, Judge. Affirmed. Van Dyke & Associates, Richard S. Van Dyke, and Geoffrey J. Farwell for Defendants and Appellants Jon Maniscalco and Michael Maniscalco. Law Office of Christine Rister and Christine M. Rister; Stratege Law and J. Scott Scheper for Defendants and Appellants Matteo Giacalone and Madelyn Giacalone. Higgs Fletcher & Mack, John Morris, Roland A. Achtel, Scott Ingold, and Steven M. Brunolli for Plaintiff and Respondent Anthony Asaro. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts B.1, B.4, and D. of the Discussion.

Date: 2025‑08‑31
Case Number: D080874

Holding

The court held that Anthony Asaro possessed standing to bring both breach‑of‑fiduciary‑duty and financial‑elder‑abuse claims on behalf of the Giacalone Family Trust and the estate of Antoinette Giacalone, that his claims were timely under the delayed‑discovery rule, that the 2011 settlement could not bar his causes of action because he was not a party to, nor gave informed consent to, the agreement, and that the trial court’s award of statutory penalties under Probate Code § 859 was proper and may be awarded to the individual plaintiff where the award is the direct result of the plaintiff’s successful litigation.

Narrative

Lead.
In a sprawling dispute over the Giacalone Family Trust, the California Court of Appeal affirmed a trial‑court judgment that held former cotrustee Jon Maniscalco liable for multiple breaches of fiduciary duty and for financial elder abuse of the late Antoinette Giacalone. The appellate decision clarified the reach of California’s elder‑abuse statutes, the operation of the delayed‑discovery rule in trust litigation, and the limits of settlement releases when a beneficiary is excluded from the agreement.

Procedural backdrop.
The litigation began after the death of Nicola Giacalone in 2016. Anthony Asaro, a beneficiary of the Residual Trust created by Nicola and Antoinette, filed a petition in the San Diego Superior Court alleging that Jon Maniscalco—who had served as Nicola’s attorney‑in‑fact, successor trustee, and cotrustee—misappropriated trust assets, failed to notify beneficiaries that the trust had become irrevocable, and financially abused Antoinette while she suffered from Alzheimer’s disease. The trial court entered a judgment ordering Maniscalco to (1) reimburse the trust $547,370, (2) pay a statutory penalty of $1,094,740 under Probate Code § 859 (twice the value of the property returned), and (3) cover Asaro’s attorney’s fees. Maniscalco appealed, asserting five defenses: lack of standing, untimeliness, release by the 2011 settlement, insufficient evidence of elder abuse, and improper calculation of damages.

Key facts.

  • Trust structure. Nicola and Antoinette created the Giacalone Family Trust in 1985, later restated in 2005. Upon the death of the first spouse, the trust split into a Survivor’s Trust (for the surviving spouse) and an irrevocable Residual Trust (for the children and other beneficiaries). Both Asaro and Jon were beneficiaries of the Residual Trust.
  • Misappropriations. Between 2009 and 2011 Jon cashed two certificates of deposit (CDs) totaling $430,019, transferred a $970,000 brokerage account to a joint account with Nicola, and conveyed the Adams Avenue property (valued at $261,000) to his own real‑estate company for a $196,000 promissory note that was effectively worthless to the trust. He also collected monthly co‑trustee fees and “gift” payments from Nicola.
  • Settlement of 2011. After Nicola revoked Jon’s power of attorney, the parties entered a one‑day mediation. Jon, Nicola, and the newly appointed cotrustees Matteo and Madelyn Giacalone signed a settlement releasing Jon from all claims related to his administration of the trust, in exchange for Jon’s repayment of $970,000. Asaro was not a party, received no notice, and was unaware of the settlement.
  • Discovery of fraud. In 2017 Asaro filed his own petition; the trial court, after an eight‑day trial, found substantial evidence of Jon’s breaches and elder abuse, applied the delayed‑discovery rule, and imposed the statutory penalty.

Issues on appeal.

  1. Standing. Whether Asaro could sue on Antoinette’s behalf under Welfare and Institutions Code § 15657.3 and whether he could assert breach‑of‑fiduciary‑duty claims as a beneficiary of an irrevocable trust.
  2. Statute of limitations. Whether the claims were barred by the ordinary three‑year limitation for breach of fiduciary duty (Probate Code §§ 16420‑a) or the four‑year limitation for financial elder abuse (W&I Code § 15657.7).
  3. Effect of the 2011 settlement. Whether a release signed by a trustee could bind a non‑party beneficiary.
  4. Sufficiency of evidence. Whether the trial court’s findings of elder abuse were supported by substantial evidence.
  5. Damages under § 859. Whether the penalty may be awarded to Asaro individually rather than to the trust.

Court’s analysis.

Standing. The appellate court rejected Maniscalco’s narrow reading of Welfare and Institutions Code § 15657.3. The statute expressly authorizes three categories of plaintiffs: (A) intestate heirs, (B) the decedent’s successor in interest, and (C) “interested persons” as defined in Probate Code § 48. The court held that Asaro, as a beneficiary of Antoinette’s trust, falls squarely within the “interested person” category. The court emphasized that the Legislature intended a broad remedial scheme to enable family members to pursue elder‑abuse claims when the personal representative is either unwilling or conflicted. Accordingly, Asaro possessed standing both for the elder‑abuse claim and for the breach‑of‑fiduciary‑duty claim, the latter grounded in the beneficiary’s direct right to sue a trustee of an irrevocable trust (Estate of Giraldin, 55 Cal. 4th 1058).

Statute of limitations. The court applied the delayed‑discovery rule, noting that Asaro did not learn of the misappropriations until after Nicola’s death and the 2011 settlement, which concealed the facts. The trial court’s finding that Asaro’s “interest was hidden” satisfied the equitable tolling requirement. For the elder‑abuse claim, the court read the four‑year limitation in § 15657.7 to commence when the plaintiff discovers, or should have discovered, the abuse—again delayed by the defendants’ concealment. The court declined to adopt Maniscalco’s argument that the limitation should run from Antoinette’s death, finding no controlling authority and emphasizing the protective purpose of the elder‑abuse statute.

Settlement release. The appellate court held that the 2011 settlement could not bind Asaro. Probate Code §§ 16442‑a and 16463 require a trustee’s release of a claim to be “fair and reasonable” and to be made with notice to, or consent of, the affected beneficiaries. Asaro was not a party, received no notice, and was directly harmed by the settlement’s concealment of his rights. The court cited Estate of Bowles (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 684, confirming that a beneficiary may sue a former trustee notwithstanding a later settlement between the trustee and other parties. Consequently, the release was ineffective as to Asaro’s claims.

Substantial evidence. The appellate panel affirmed the trial court’s factual findings. The record showed that Jon personally received the CD proceeds, the brokerage account, and the Adams Avenue property, and that the promissory note was grossly undervalued. The court found the evidence sufficient to support both the breach‑of‑fiduciary‑duty and elder‑abuse findings, rendering Maniscalco’s “harmless error” argument untenable.

Damages under § 859. Probate Code § 859 authorizes a court to award twice the value of any property wrongfully taken from a trust, “to be paid to the plaintiff” when the plaintiff’s efforts are the proximate cause of the recovery. The trial court explained that Asaro’s litigation was the sole catalyst for the restitution; without his suit, the trust would have remained deprived of the assets. The appellate court therefore upheld the award to Asaro individually, noting that the statute’s language does not require the penalty to be paid to the trust itself.

Disposition.
All of Maniscalco’s arguments were rejected. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment, leaving in place the restitution, the statutory penalty, and the award of attorney’s fees to Asaro.

Closing analysis.
Asaro v. Maniscalco reinforces several evolving doctrines in California trust and elder‑abuse law. First, it confirms that “interested persons” under Probate Code § 48 enjoy a robust standing regime, allowing beneficiaries to act when a personal representative is incapacitated or conflicted. Second, the decision clarifies that the delayed‑discovery rule applies not only to fraud claims but also to fiduciary‑duty and elder‑abuse actions where trustees actively conceal misconduct. Third, the ruling narrows the reach of settlement releases: a trustee cannot unilaterally waive a beneficiary’s rights without notice and consent, even when the release is signed by other cotrustees. Finally, the affirmation of a statutory penalty payable to the individual plaintiff underscores the legislature’s intent to incentivize beneficiaries to police trustees, especially in contexts of elder abuse.

Unresolved questions remain. The opinion sidestepped a full discussion of whether the four‑year elder‑abuse limitation could ever be triggered by the decedent’s death rather than the plaintiff’s discovery, leaving lower courts to navigate that nuance on a case‑by‑case basis. Additionally, the decision did not address whether a trustee who is also a beneficiary (as Jon was) can be subject to double liability—once as a fiduciary and again under § 859—though the court’s reasoning suggests no statutory bar. Practitioners should therefore be vigilant in documenting concealment, ensuring beneficiaries receive notice of any settlement, and promptly asserting claims once the facts become known.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

  • Probate Code §§ 16420‑a, 16442‑a, 16463, 16464, 16461(b) – fiduciary‑duty breach, release of claims, fairness requirements.
  • Probate Code § 859 – statutory penalty (double damages) for conversion of trust property.
  • Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 15657.3, 15657.5, 15657.7 – financial elder‑abuse cause of action, standing, limitations.
  • Code of Civil Procedure §§ 632, 312, 318 – statement of decision standards, real‑property limitation.
  • Code of Civil Procedure § 352(a) – tolling for minors or incapacitated persons.
  • Code of Civil Procedure § 366.1(b) – post‑mortem limitation period for survivor claims.
  • Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.310(a) – public‑policy presumption against enforceability of confidential settlement of elder‑abuse claims.
  • California Rules of Court, rule 8.1110 – certification for publication.

Key cases cited

  • Estate of Giraldin, 55 Cal. 4th 1058 (2012) – beneficiary standing to sue trustee of irrevocable trust.
  • Estate of Bowles, 169 Cal.App.4th 684 (2008) – beneficiary may sue despite later settlement.
  • People v. Valencia, 3 Cal. 5th 347 (2017) – surplusage doctrine in statutory construction.
  • Estate of Lowrie, 118 Cal.App.4th 220 (2004) – broad legislative intent for “interested persons.”
  • Bauer v. Bauer, 46 Cal.App.4th 1106 (1996) – statement of decision need not state every evidentiary fact.
  • Triplett v. Williams, 269 Cal.App.2d 135 (1969) – discovery rule for fraud.
  • Fox v. Ethicon Endo‑Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal. 4th 797 (2005) – delayed‑discovery rule.
  • Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal. 3d 1103 (1988) – discovery rule for negligence.
  • Parsons v. Tickner, 31 Cal.App.4th 1513 (1995) – survivor‑claim limitation period.
  • State ex rel. Dept. of California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court, 60 Cal. 4th 1002 (2015) – Restatement (Third) of Agency and Trusts.