Case No. G063394
Filed 8 /14/25 Clark v. Smith CA4/3
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ord ered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Erick L. Larsh, Judge. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings .
Monteleone & McCrory, Patrick J. Duffy and Martha Eager for
Plaintiff and Appellant.
SKB Law and Susan Knock Beck ; Karish & Bjorgum and Alfred
Eric Bjorgum and Law Offices of Lawrence H. Nemirow and Lawrence H.
Nemirow for Defendants and Respondents.
In December 2012, Donald B. Clark sold a business called
Precision Airparts Support Services, Inc. (PASS) to Tony Ordaz and Ira
Smith. In connection with the sale, Ordaz and Smith signed two promissory
notes: one for $50,000 and one for $920,000. D onald B . Clark was the holder
of both n otes. Payments on the notes were set to begin in January 2018.
About 18 months after the sale , Donald B . Clark and his wife ,
Linda Clark , restated their family trust, The Donald B. Clark and Linda
Clark Trust Dated May 6, 2009, restated July 22, 2014 (the Trust) .1 By the
restatement, Donald and Linda transferred all their assets —separate and
community —into the Trust. Shortly thereafter, D onald died, leaving L inda as
sole trustee of the Trust .
When Ordaz and Smith failed to begin payment s on the notes,
Linda filed suit. The matter was tried to the court , and at the conclusion of
trial Ordaz and Smith moved for judgment,2 arguing Linda had no standing
to pursue any claim on the notes. The trial court agreed and entered
judgment in favor of Ordaz and Smith. L inda appealed.
The question presented on appeal is simple : Did Linda, as
trustee, have standing to sue to enforce repayment of notes held by the
Trust? The answer is yes. Under the laws of California (where the suit was
filed) and Colorado (the situs of the Trust ), as well as under the specific terms
of the Trust, L inda, as trustee, was not only empowered but required to bring
Because Donald B. Clark and Linda Clark share a surname, we
refer to them by their first names for clarity and convenience. We refer to
their son, Donald C. Clark, by his full name to avoid confusion.
Ordaz and Smith referred to their oral motion as a motion for
nonsuit. Becau se the case was tried to the court, the trial court properly
treated the motion as a motion for judgment. (Code Civ . Proc. , § 631.8 .)
suit seeking repayment of the notes. We therefore reverse the judgment and
remand to the trial court for further proceedings .
Donald purchased PASS in August 1982 . He was married to
Linda at the time . Thirty years later, Donald, while still married to L inda,
sold PASS to respondent s Ordaz and Smith . The sale closed in December
in three separate transactions: purchase of the equipment; purchase of
the building; and purchase of corporate stock. The p urchase of the building
and equipment was financed primarily by a loan from the Small Business
Administration.
Ordaz and Smith also signed a promissory note in the amount of
$50,000 , together with annual interest of two percent on the unpaid
principal , for purchase of certain equipment not included as part of the S mall
Business Administration financed purchase (the Equipment Note) .
Repayment on the Equipment Note was to be made in monthly payments of
$184.81 beginning on January 1, 2018 .
Ordaz and Smith were unable to obtain a loan for the stock
purchase , so in November 2012 they signed a promissory note agreeing to pay
Donald $920,000 on January 1, 2033, for 287,520 shares of PASS —
representing 95.84 percent of PASS stock (the Stock Note) .3 The Stock N ote
also required payment of interest at the annual rate of two percent, accruing
from December 5, 2012 and payable beginning January 1, 2018 and
continuing through the maturity date . The Stock Note provide d if Ordaz and
Ordaz and Smith signed a nearly identical promissory note in
June 2012, also promising to pay $920,000 for 287 ,520 shares of stock. It is
undisputed the June 2012 note was superseded by the November 2012 note.
Smith defaulted in payment of the principal or the interest, the whole
amount could, at the note holder’s option, become immediately due.4
About eighteen months after the sale of PASS, Donald and Linda
executed a restatement of their Trust .5 Donald and Linda remained the
settlors and trustees and, by the restatement, transferred almost all of their
assets —whether separate or community property and whether acquired
Respondents’ brief de votes significant space to their theory that
Donald and Linda’s son, Donald C. Clark, was one of the purchasers of PASS
and that language in the Trust demonstrated Donald’s intent to have any
evidence of Donald C. Clark’s indebtedness return ed to Donald C. Clark upon
Donald’s death . The Notes that are the subject of the action, however, were
signed only by Ordaz and Smith and do not reflect any indebtedness by
Donald C. Clark .
The Trust was created “under the laws of Colorado and under
the laws of any state in which any trust created under this trust document is
administered. ” The litigation was filed in California. The trial court relied on
law from both California and Colorado in determining L inda did not have
standing. Appellant and respondents cite both Colorado and California law in
their briefs but do not address whether standing should be determined as a
procedural matter under California law or a substantive matter under
Colorado law. We need not address that issue, however, because our decision
is the same under the law of either jurisdiction.
before or after the execution —into the Trust.6 Under the terms of the
restated Trust, when either D onald or Linda passed away , the assets of the
Trust —except for certain funeral expenses, taxes, and a family cabin —were
to be divided into the Survivor ’s Trust and the Marital Share. The surviving
spouse was the trustee of both the Survivor ’s Trust and the Marital Share,
with absolute power over the Survivor’s Trust and the right to distribute the
principal of the Marital Share to hi m- or herself . In August 2015, just over a
year after the Trust was restated , Donald passed away , leaving L inda as sole
trustee of the Trust .
In July 2018 , six months after payments on the Equipment Note
and Stock Note (collectively , the Notes ) came due , Linda sent a letter to
Ordaz and Smith demanding monthly payments on the Equipment Note and
payment of the entire amount of $956,800 due under the Stock Note ’s
acceleration clause .
The relevant provision reads, in full : “By executing this
instrument, we transfer, convey, and assign the property described in the
attached schedules to our Trustee [sic]. We also transfer all our right, title,
and interest in and to all of our property that may legally be held in trust and
that may be transferred to our trust by this assignment. This assignment
includes all of our real, personal, tangible, and intangible property located in
the United States, whether separate property or community property, and
whether acquired before or after the execution of this instrument, except for
these assets that are expressly not transferred by this instrument: [¶] life
insurance policies, unless the ownership of a policy is transferred to our trust
by a separate instrument that specifically refers to the policy; [¶] corporate
and self -employed ( Keogh ) pension, profit -sharing, and stock bonus plans; [¶]
qualified retirement plans; [¶] commercial annuities; [¶] Section 1244 (small
business) stock; and [¶] any property, the transfer of which would result in
the immediate recognition of income subject to income or other taxes, would
result in the loss of a homestead exemption, or would violate a restriction on
transfer agreement.”
PASS did not pay. Instead, t wo months later, PASS filed a civil
complaint against Linda, the Trust , and the Estate of Donald Clark , alleging
breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
fraud , all based on the assertion D onald had lied in connection with the sale
of PASS about the value of the equipment and PASS . The complaint was
amended three times . The third amended complaint named PASS, Ordaz,
and Smith (collectively , respondents) as plaintiffs , named Linda as the only
defendant , and alleged claims of breach of contract, breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment,
and indemnification .
In November 2018, Linda filed a complaint against respondents
seeking to collect on the Notes . Her case was consolidated with respondents’
action for all purposes.
Trial of the consolidated action began in May 2023 and proceeded
on and off for the next month . On June 7, 2023 , in the midst of trial, the trial
court granted Linda leave to amend her complaint. Linda’s original complaint
had stated she was suing as an individual and as the surviving beneficiary of
the Trust. The amended complaint stated L inda was suing as an individual,
as the surviving trustee and surviving beneficiary of the Trust, and as the
community property owner of the Notes. Respondents dismissed the ir
complaint the same day , leaving trial to continue only as to Linda’s claims .
On June 13, 2023, at the close of Linda’s case, respondents made
an oral motion for nonsuit on the ground Linda was not a holder in due
course of the Notes or, in the alternative, did not have standing to sue on
them.
The trial court requested and reviewed supplemental briefing
from both parties on the standing issue . In September 2023, the trial court ,
correctly treating respondents ’ motion for nonsuit as a motion for judgment
(Code Civ. Proc., § 631.8) , found Linda lacked standing to bring her claims
and, on that ground, awarded judgment in favor of respondents and declared
them the prevailing parties. Linda appeals the judgment .7
Respondents argue Linda lacks standing to sue on the Notes
because (1) her complaint was never amended to allege she was suing as
trustee , (2) the Notes were Donald’s separate property and never belonged to
Linda, and (3) Linda did not seek or obtain permission from a probate court
to bring the claims . Linda contends her position as trustee of the Trust gives
her standing to sue on the Notes.
I.
LINDA ’S COMPLAINT WAS AMENDED TO SUE AS TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST
Respondent s assert Linda’s complaint was n ever amended
because , although the trial court orally allowed the amendment , the oral
pronouncement was never reflected in a written order.8 Even if a written
order w as necessary, r espondents ’ argument fails for the simple reason that,
after stating at least three times on the record that it allowed Linda to amend
Following the judgment, the trial court awarded PASS, as the
prevailing party, more than $40,000 in costs. L inda challenges that
postjudgment order by a separate appeal pending in this court ( case No.
G063597).
Respondents cite two cases in support of this argument , Pacific
Home v. County of Los Angeles (1953) 41 Cal.2d 855, 857 –858 and Diaz v.
Professional Community Management, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190,
–1207. Neither case is relevant , as each involves a situation where the
court ’s oral pronouncement contradicted its subsequent written order . That is
not the case here.
her complaint to allege she was suing as trustee, the court issued two written
orders confirming it had granted Linda leave to amend her complaint , and
Linda filed the amended complaint .
On June 7, 2023, the trial court informed the parties on the
record : “the amendment has been received , and the court ’s going to allow the
amendment as filed. ” Five days later —at the next trial session —respondents ’
counsel asked the court to confirm “the amendment [Linda] presented has
been accepted and is operative. ” The court ’s response was unequivocal : “The
court accepted the amendment and allowed it to be filed. That would be the
operative complaint wherein which Linda Clark changed Linda Clark as an
individual to Linda Clark, Trustee. And that should be the operative
complaint. ” The court further clarified the amended complaint also stated
Linda was suing on a community property interest a s a beneficiary. The very
next day, the court reiterated its ruling on the record : “Linda Clark is the
trustee of the trust, and I ’ve allowed amendment. She sued as an individual
under holder in due course. Then we amended that, and it was Linda Clark
trustee and with community property interest. ”
The trial court then confirmed its oral rulings in two written
orders. The court’s June 12, 2023 minute order reads, in part : “Court
reconfirmed its ruling to allow [Linda’s counsel] to file an Amended
Complaint .” The court’s September 25, 2023 minute order reiterated : “The
court allowed Ms. Clark to amend the complaint, prior to the close of
evidence, alleging as well that she was acting in the capacity of trustee of the
Donald B. Clark and Linda Clark trust. ”
Under both the trial court ’s oral and written orders, L inda was
granted leave to —and did—amend her complaint to sue as trustee of the
Trust.
II.
AS TRUSTEE , LINDA HAS STANDING TO SUE ON THE NOTES
Respondents assert L inda does not have standing to sue on the
Notes because they were Donald’s separate property . The argument
misconstrues both the law and the plain directions of the Trust . When the
Trust was restated, virtually all of D onald’s and Linda’s property —including
their separate and community property —was placed in the Trust.9
Accordingly, e ven if the Notes were D onald’s separate property , they became
assets held in the Trust. No evidence was presented at trial that the Notes
were ever removed from the Trust . Thus, u nder the terms of the Trust, when
Donald died, L inda became the sole trustee , with power over all the Trust
assets , including the Notes .
At oral argument, Respondents asserted —for the first time and
without citation to authority —that the restated Trust’s general assignment
was insufficient to transfer the Notes into the Trust. Pursuant to P robate
Code section 15200 , a trust is created by several methods, including “ [a]
declaration by the owner of property that the owner holds the property as
trustee” (id., subd. (a)) , “[a] transfer of property by the owner during the
owner’s lifetime to another person as trustee ” (id., subd. (b)), and “ [a] transfer
of property by the owner, by will or by other instrument taking effect upon
the death of the owner, to another person as trustee” (id., subd. (c) ). Colorado
law recognizes the same methods of trust creation . (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-5-
401.) “‘Property ’” is defined in California’s Probate Code as “anything that
may be the subject of ownership and includes both real and personal property
The only exceptions were certain specified assets, which did not
include the Notes.
and any interest therein.” (Prob. Code, § 62.) Colorado law is nearly identical,
defining “ ‘[p]roperty ’” as “both real and personal property or any interest
therein and anything that may be the subject of ownership.” (Colo. Rev. Stat.
15-10-201.)
Property may be transferred into a trust by a general
assignment: “[A] general assignment of a party’s real and personal property
in a written instrument is sufficiently certain to be legally effective .”
(Ukkestad v. RBS Asset Finance, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 156, 162, fn. 6;
see also Kucker v. Kucker (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 90, 95 [“There is no
California authority invalidating a transfer of shares of stock to a trust
because a general assignment of personal property did not identify the
shares. Nor sh ould there be”] .) So, whether the Notes were separate or
community property, the Clarks ’ transfer of “all of our real, personal,
tangible, and intan gible property, located in the United States, whether
separate property or community property” was sufficient to transfer the
Notes .
As trustee , Linda had the power to sue for collection on the
Notes . (Prob. Code, § 16249 [a “trustee has the power to prosecute or defend
actions, claims, or proceedings for the protection of trust property”] ; Colo.
Rev. Stat. § 15-5-816(x) [a trustee has power to “ [p]rosecute . . . an action,
claim, or judicial proceeding in any jurisdiction to protect trust property”] .)
Indeed, Linda not only had the power to prosecute claims but, as trustee , she
had the duty to protect trust property, including by enforcement of claims.
(Prob. Code, §§ 16007 [trustee has “a duty to make the trust property
productive ”] & 16010 [trustee has “a duty to take reasonable steps to enforce
claims that are part of the trust property ”]; see also Purdy v. Johnson (1917)
Cal . 521, 528 [ “It was the duty of the trustees to collect [the promissory
notes], and they were liable for the amount of them with interest, unless they
made it appear that the failure to collect the notes was not due to their
fault ”]; Col. Rev. Stat. §§ 15-5-809 [trustee is required to “take reasonable
steps to take control of and protect the trust property ”] & 15-5-811 [trustee is
required to “take reasonable steps to enforce claims of the trust ”].)
When a trustee brings an action regarding trust property , it must
do so in his or her own name. “[A] trust is not a person but rather ‘a fiduciary
relationship with respect to property. ’ [Citation s.] Indeed, ‘“‘an ordinary
express trust is not an entity separate from its trustees. ’”’ [Citation.] For that
reason, the trustee, rat her than the trust, is the real party in interest in
litigation involving trust property. ” (Moeller v. Superior Court (1997) 16
Cal.4th 1124 , 1132 , fn. 3; see also Colo . Rules Civ . Proc., rule 17.1 [“Every
action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest; but [a]
trustee of an express trust . . . may sue in his own name without joining with
him the party for whose benefit the action is brought ”].) Linda properly sued
in her own name.
Further, in California when a trustee brings an action in its own
name regarding trust property, it is not required to mention the trust. ( See
Hassoldt v. Patrick Media Group, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 153, 171,
disapproved on another ground in People v. Rogers (2013) 57 Cal.4th 296,
330–331 [ a trustee can maintain an action on trust property in their own
name “without mentioning the trust ”]; & McKoin v. Rosefelt (1944) 66
Cal.App.2d 757, 769 [“‘it is unnecessary for the trustee in the pleadings . . . to
describe himself as trustee. He can proceed in the action as though he were
the owner of the claim which he is enforcing. If he does describe himself as
trustee the description is treated as surpl usage’”].)
In sum, Linda had standing to pursue recovery on the Notes and
could do so even without mentioning the Trust or identifying herself as
trustee in the complaint.
III.
LINDA DID NOT NEED PROBATE COURT AUTHORIZATION TO SUE ON THE NOTES
Respondents argue Linda was required to obtain permission from
a probate court to sue on the Notes either by filing a Heggstad petition
(Estate of Heggstad (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 943 ( Heggstad )) or by initiating a
probate proceeding . We disagree.
Linda was not required to file a Heggstad petition. Heggstad
addressed the transfer of real property into a trust and held “a written
declaration of trust by the owner of real property, in which he names himself
trustee, is sufficient to create a trust in that property, and . . . the law does
not require a separate deed transferring the property to the trust.”
(Heggstad , supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at p. 9 50.) Named after Heggstad , a
Heggstad petition is a device to ask the probate court to transfer legal title to
real property when the settlor made the necessary declaration but failed to
transfer the title by a deed or other written document sufficient to satisfy the
statute of frauds. Here, as set forth above, the Notes were transferred to the
Trust by the general assignment. The Notes were not real property , and
Heggstad is inapplicable.
Neither was Linda required to initiate probate proceedings to
obtain court permission to pursue payment under the Notes. One of the
primary functions of a revocable inter vivos trust —such as the Trust here —is
to “avoid probate upon death.” ( Weber v. Langholz (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th
1578, 1583; see also Zanelli v. McGrath (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 615, 633 [a
“revocable inter vivos trust [is] a probate avoidance device ”] & Estate of
Parrette (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 157, 164 [“‘When a person creates, and
transfers property to, an inter vivos trust and the trust estate does not revert
to the settlor’s estate on his death, the trust property is not subject to probate
administration in the settlor’ s estate. [Citation.] The property is not subject
to probate administration even if the decedent -settlor was a life beneficiary of
the trust or retained the unexercised power to revoke’”].) Further, “‘when
property is held in this type of trust, th e settlor and lifetime beneficiary “‘has
the equivalent of full ownership of the property.’”’” ( Boshernitsan v. Bach
(2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 883, 892.)
Trustees are not required to obtain court approval or authority to
pursue claims relating to trust property under either California or Colorado
law. (Prob. Code, § 16200, subd. (b) [a trustee may exercise “the powers
conferred by statute ” “without the need to obtain court authorization ”]; Colo.
Rev. Stat. § 15-5-815(1)(b)( III) [a trustee may exercise any powers “conferred
by this code ” “without authorization by the court ”].) In addition to the power
conferred by statute, the Trust at issue here specifically empowered the
trustee to act without court approval: “Except as otherwise specifically
provided in this trust, our Trustee may exercise the powers granted by this
trust without prior approval from any court, including those powers set forth
under the laws of the State of Colorado or any other jurisdiction whose law
applies to this trust. ”10
Linda did not require court approval or permission to bring her
claims against respondents.
The judgment is reversed, and the matter is remanded for the trial court to conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion . Linda shall recover costs on appeal.
GOODING, J.
WE CONCUR:
MOTOIKE, ACTING P. J.
DELANEY, J. On June 26, 2023 —after the trial court initially had taken the motion for judgment under submission —Linda filed a petition for formal probate of the will with the District Court in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Respondents argue this filing “showed Mrs. Clark knew the Notes were property of [Donald’s] Will . . . .” Respondents, however, do not offer any authority supporting the proposition that the filing of the Colorado probate proceedings has any impact on L inda’s standing to pursue the claims in California.