Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of Rex Martin - Case Brief

Case Number: B335353
Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two
Date Filed: August 25, 2025

← Back to Case Summary

Holding

The court held that the probate court’s removal of the appellant as trustee was not barred by a procedural stay and that, absent any evidentiary record contradicting the trial court’s findings, the removal order was supported by substantial evidence and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

The appellate decision in Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of Rex Martin underscores the limited scope of appellate review in probate trustee disputes and clarifies when a probate court may proceed despite a pending, albeit non‑jurisdictional, appeal.

Walter E. Martin, a pro se appellant, challenged a Los Angeles County Superior Court order that removed him as trustee of the Gesner L. Martin Trust (the “Trust”) and appointed his niece, Chevon Martin Robinson, as successor trustee. The Trust, created in 2011 by Gesner L. Martin, became irrevocable upon the settlor’s death in January 2018. Both Walter and his brother Rex Martin were named trustees; Rex’s daughter, Chevon, is a beneficiary.

The dispute traces back to a 2018 petition by Chevon seeking a conservatorship for Rex, which, according to the appellate record, also invoked the probate court’s authority to compel the trustee to distribute funds under the Trust’s “special needs” provision and to produce an accounting. At a hearing on August 23, 2018, the court asserted jurisdiction over the Trust, froze its assets, and suspended Walter as trustee. No objection to jurisdiction or the freeze appears in the record.

In March 2019 the court formally suspended Walter. Four years later, in July 2023, Walter filed a motion to vacate that suspension; the court denied the motion, finding insufficient proof to overturn the earlier order. That same month, Chevon filed a petition to remove Walter as trustee, alleging violations of court orders, continued management of Trust assets without authorization, and failure to provide an accounting. At the November 9, 2023 hearing, the court heard testimony from the Trust’s CPA, whose accounting raised questions about loans between Walter and the Trust. Technical difficulties truncated the transcript, and the record shows no request to continue the hearing. The court granted Chevon’s petition, removed Walter, appointed Chevon as successor trustee, and ordered Walter to account for all Trust assets from 2011 through November 2023. Walter’s subsequent appeal raised two principal issues.

First, whether the probate court’s action was stayed by Walter’s earlier appeal of a separate order. Walter argued that his August 2023 appeal of the denial of his motion to vacate the 2019 suspension automatically stayed all further probate proceedings. The appellate court rejected that contention, noting that the earlier appeal was dismissed because California Probate Code does not permit appeals from denials of motions filed under Code of Civil Procedure § 473. Since the court never acquired jurisdiction over that appeal, the “stay” doctrine—rooted in Code of Civil Procedure § 916 and articulated in Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180—did not attach. Consequently, the probate court retained authority to proceed.

Second, whether the trustee‑removal order was subject to reversal for abuse of discretion. Under Probate Code § 1300(g), orders removing a trustee are appealable. The appellate standard is abuse‑of‑discretion review: factual findings are upheld if supported by substantial evidence; legal conclusions are reviewed de novo; and the application of law to fact is reversible only if arbitrary or capricious. The appellate court emphasized that the burden rests on the appellant to produce a competent evidentiary record demonstrating error. Citing Estate of El Wardani (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 870 and Gonzalez v. Rebollo (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 969, the court reiterated that absent a record showing error, the trial court’s findings are presumed correct.

Walter offered no documentary evidence—no copy of the Trust instrument, no authenticated provision barring him from serving, no proof of his alleged diligent administration, nor any record of alleged conflicts of interest. Likewise, the record contains no evidence of Chevon’s qualifications or of alternative trustee candidates, rendering his arguments speculative. The appellate court therefore presumed the probate court’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the court did not abuse its discretion in removing Walter and appointing Chevon. The order was affirmed, and costs awarded to the respondent.

Implications for probate practice
This decision reinforces two critical principles for California probate practitioners. First, an appeal that is procedurally defective—such as one dismissed for lack of statutory authority—does not automatically stay subsequent probate actions. Counsel must verify that a valid appeal exists before asserting a stay. Second, when challenging a trustee removal, the appellant bears the heavy burden of constructing a robust evidentiary record. Assertions of “diligent administration” or “lack of qualifications” must be substantiated with the Trust instrument, accounting statements, or sworn testimony. Courts will not infer error from silence in the record.

Unresolved questions linger regarding the scope of a probate court’s sua sponte authority to remove a trustee absent a formal petition under Probate Code § 17200. While the opinion cites Schwartz v. Labow (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 417, the precise procedural safeguards—such as notice requirements and the opportunity for a hearing—remain fertile ground for future litigation, especially where technical glitches, like the incomplete CPA testimony in this case, may impede a full evidentiary presentation.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

Probate Code § 1300(g) – Appealability of trustee removal orders.
Probate Code § 15642 – Grounds for removal of a trustee.
Probate Code § 17200(b)(6) & (b)(7) – Court’s authority to direct accounting and distribution in special‑needs trusts.
California Code of Civil Procedure § 916 – Automatic stay of trial‑court proceedings pending appeal.
California Code of Civil Procedure § 473 – Grounds for relief from judgment; not a basis for appeal in probate context.

Major Cases Cited

Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180 – Stay doctrine and preservation of status quo.
Estate of El Wardani (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 870 – Abuse‑of‑discretion standard for trustee removal.
Gonzalez v. Rebollo (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 969 – Presumption of correctness absent evidentiary record.
In re Hochberg (1970) 2 Cal.3d 870 – Limits of appellate review to the trial record.
Schwartz v. Labow (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 417 – Court’s power to remove a trustee sua sponte.
Conservatorship of Presha (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 487 – Probate court intervention to prevent fiduciary abuse.