Judge: Olga Alvarez, Case: 37-2021-00013279-PR-TR-CTL, Date: 2023-08-30 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

CENTRAL COURTHOUSE TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 29, 2023

08/30/2023  10:30:00 AM  503 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Olga Alvarez

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Probate  Trust Proceedings Motion Hearing (Probate) 37-2021-00013279-PR-TR-CTL IN THE MATTER OF THE DALE H BLUST AND ANNE F BLUST TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 27, 1992 [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Enforce Settlement, 07/25/2023

Pursuant to San Diego Superior Court Local Rule, rule 4.23.7, the court's tentative ruling is as follows: The Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Glenn Blust is GRANTED.

The request for $2,280 in attorney's fees is GRANTED.

I. Background On March 23, 2021, Successor Trustee of the Dale H. Blust and Anne F. Blust Trust dated February 27, 1992, Glenn Blust (Petitioner), filed a petition under Probate Code section 850 (Petition), alleging elder financial abuse and seeking double damages, a constructive trust, and attorneys' fees and costs. (ROA 1.) On June 30, 2021, Denise Blust and Bruce Marada, Jr., Respondents (Respondents), filed objections to the Petition. (ROA 12, 13.) Thereafter, in August 2022, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which was approved by the Court. (ROA 50, Joint Stipulation and Order.) Petitioner moves to enforce the settlement agreement on the ground that Respondents have not made full payments according to the terms of the agreement. (ROA 52.) Petitioner also moves for $2,280 in attorney's fees and costs for bringing the motion.

Respondent Bruce Marada, Jr. untimely filed his opposition on August 23, 2023. (ROA 60.) II. Discussion The material terms of the Settlement Agreement are set forth at paragraph 2: - Denise and Bruce Jr. agree to pay Glenn Blust the unpaid principal balance of $74,616.79 plus 4% interest in equal monthly installments over a four-year period.

- Denise and Bruce Jr. agree to pay Glenn Blust $23,000.00 in reimbursement for his attorney's fees payable over the same four-year period without interest.

- 80% of any unpaid balance would be deemed satisfied upon Glenn's passing. The remaining balance due would be owed to Glenn's personal representative or Trustee under the same payment terms.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3003180 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  IN THE MATTER OF THE DALE H BLUST AND ANNE F BLUST TRUST  37-2021-00013279-PR-TR-CTL (ROA 50, Exh. A.) The settlement agreement also provides for attorney's fees in the event a party is required to bring legal action to enforce the terms of the agreement. (Id., at ¶ 10.) The Court has jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement pursuant to CCP § 664.6(a).

Petitioner argues that Respondents have breached the settlement agreement because they have been paying an incorrect amount. Respondent paid $2,095.87 monthly for the first six months. Respondents have been paying $2,163.95 monthly from May 2023 based on interest calculated using an amortization table. However, the correct monthly payment is $2,282.40, calculated using simple interest of 4%. In addition, Petitioner never received payment for April 2023.

Petitioner argues that $74,616.79 x 0.4 x 4 years = $11,939.69 in interest. Plus $23,000 for attorney's fees without interest, the total payment amount is $109,555.47. This total divided by 48 months is $2,282.40 per month ($109,555.47 / 48 = $2,282.40), which is the correct amount.

Petitioner requests the Court order Respondents to pay $2,282.40 per month, and to make up the difference in any prior monthly payments for less than the full amount.

Here, Respondent Marada Jr. filed an untimely opposition to the motion. (ROA 60.) Petitioner's reply is also untimely as a result. Notwithstanding, the Court considered the arguments of the parties.

The settlement agreement provides for '4% interest in equal monthly installments over a four-year period.' The agreement does not provide for the judgment to be amortized over four years, as Respondent proposes, to support an interest calculation based on an amortization schedule. Indeed, the judgment is not a loan that was amortized, and there is no language in the settlement agreement to support such an interpretation.

Therefore, the motion to enforce the settlement agreement is GRANTED.

Based on the foregoing, the request for attorney's fees and costs is GRANTED in the amount requested.

Counsel for Petitioner is directed to serve notice of this ruling in accordance with the provisions of CCP § 1019.5(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3003180