On August 20, 2019 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Rideout, Carolyn Monette,
and
for Petition for Probate of Will and for Letters Testamentary
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
(SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY)
FULLERTON, LEMANN, SCHAEFER & DOMINICK, LLP
21 5NORTH D STREET, FIRST FLOOR
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92401 -1 71 2
TELEPHONE (909) 889-3691 SUPERIOR EokaEoPCALIFORNIA
COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDlNO
TELECOPIER (909) 888-51 19
SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT PROBATE DEPARTMENT
WILFRID c. LEMANN, SBN No. 080306 OCT 2 4 2022
MARK H. MCGUIRE, SBN: 261304
Attorneys for Doris Reusch 53v k C&i’ f)
(Dmflmm-kmMA
VALERIE URUENA\_ DEPUTY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
In Re the Estate of, Case No: PROPS 1900719
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION
TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT
FRIEDRICH WILHELM GRABHORN, AGREEMENT AND REQUEST FOR
SURCHARGE, CONTEMPT AND
DAMAGES
Decedent. Date: October 31, 2022
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept: S37
Doris Reusch (“Doris”), former spouse of Decedent submits her
NNNNNNNNNAA—XAAAA-xgfi
Reply to Executor’s
mNCDCTI-FCQN—‘OLOQNOCTI&OON—\O
Opposition to Petition to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Request for Surcharge
and Damages
as follows:
I. ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER FOR FINAL DISTRIBUTION
1. This Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the Partial and Final Agreement.
See
Code of Civil Proc. §664.6. Distributions of the Estate have not been made pursuant to the Final
Agreement and Order dated April 21, 2022. N0 Final Discharge has been issued and the bond has
not been exonerated. The Court can issue an Order enforcing the terms of Final Settlement
Agreement and Order.
2. Executor maintains that the Parties have “settled their dispute” per the terms of the
Final Settlement Agreement. Executor is misled in believing that agreeing to the terms of
1
REPLY TO OPPOSITION
settlement somehow exonerates them from performing their obligations under the terms of the
settlement agreement. The Agreement expressly states that Executor is to distribute the cash on
hand in the amount of $66,550 as follows:
a. To herself as personal representative $1 1,347
COGNC)O1#OOI\D-‘
b. To her Attorney Theodore C. Beall $12,203
c. To Doris Reusch $43,000
3. Executor has yet to distribute any portion of the Estate as required pursuant to the
Final Agreement and Order dated April 21, 2022. As such, Petitioner requests an order requiring
Executor to, 1) return the trailer in the partial agreement to Petitioner within thirty (30) days 0f
service of the Order, and 2) pay Petitioner $43,000, per the terms of the Final Agreement.
II. SURCHARGE OF EXECUTOR
4. The Panies have entered into a Final Settlement Agreement in an effort to
amicably settle the dispute. Executor has continually failed in her duties as Executor of the Estate,
violated court orders and has admitted to distributing the entirety of the Estate to herself, in
Violation of her duties as executor 0f the estate. Despite this, Petitioner agreed to settle the dispute
in good faith and accept the $43,000 she is entitled to and no more.
5. Due to the fact final distributions have still not been made pursuant to the Final
NNNMNNNNN-x-x-x-x-s-x-x-xAA
Agreement and Order dated April 21, 2022, Petitioner filed her Petition to Enforce Settlement
Agreement requesting an Order
mflmCHAOON—‘OCOQNQCTIAWN—‘O
that Executor fulfill her obligations under the agreement and
distribute the money in the estate. In response, Executor files an opposition to the Petition to
Enforce Settlement. Executor’s Counsel stated in their Opposition that after repeated
communication with his client, Executor has still failed to fulfill her obligations, this time failing
to pay her attorney for legal fees incurred as a result of his representation of Executor regarding
this matter.
6. Executor’s Counsel agrees that a surcharge against Executor is proper; however, it
is only a matter of the amount that is in dispute.
7. In Reply, Petitioner reminds the Court of legally significant facts and of the
procedural position of the case.
2
REPLY T0 OPPOSITION
Document Filed Date
October 24, 2022
Case Filing Date
August 20, 2019
Category
Petition for Probate of Will and for Letters Testamentary
Status
Under Court Supervision
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
(SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY) FULLERTON, LEMANN, SCHAEFER & DOMINICK, LLP 21 5NORTH D STREET, FIRST FLOOR SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92401 -1 71 2 TELEPHONE (909) 889-3691 SUPERIOR EokaEoPCALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDlNO TELECOPIER (909) 888-51 19 SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT PROBATE DEPARTMENT WILFRID c. LEMANN, SBN No. 080306 OCT 2 4 2022 MARK H. MCGUIRE, SBN: 261304 Attorneys for Doris Reusch 53v k C&i’ f) (Dmflmm-kmMA VALERIE URUENA\_ DEPUTY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO In Re the Estate of, Case No: PROPS 1900719 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT FRIEDRICH WILHELM GRABHORN, AGREEMENT AND REQUEST FOR SURCHARGE, CONTEMPT AND DAMAGES Decedent. Date: October 31, 2022 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: S37 Doris Reusch (“Doris”), former spouse of Decedent submits her NNNNNNNNNAA—XAAAA-xgfi Reply to Executor’s mNCDCTI-FCQN—‘OLOQNOCTI&OON—\O Opposition to Petition to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Request for Surcharge and Damages as follows: I. ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER FOR FINAL DISTRIBUTION 1. This Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the Partial and Final Agreement. See Code of Civil Proc. §664.6. Distributions of the Estate have not been made pursuant to the Final Agreement and Order dated April 21, 2022. N0 Final Discharge has been issued and the bond has not been exonerated. The Court can issue an Order enforcing the terms of Final Settlement Agreement and Order. 2. Executor maintains that the Parties have “settled their dispute” per the terms of the Final Settlement Agreement. Executor is misled in believing that agreeing to the terms of 1 REPLY TO OPPOSITION settlement somehow exonerates them from performing their obligations under the terms of the settlement agreement. The Agreement expressly states that Executor is to distribute the cash on hand in the amount of $66,550 as follows: a. To herself as personal representative $1 1,347 COGNC)O1#OOI\D-‘ b. To her Attorney Theodore C. Beall $12,203 c. To Doris Reusch $43,000 3. Executor has yet to distribute any portion of the Estate as required pursuant to the Final Agreement and Order dated April 21, 2022. As such, Petitioner requests an order requiring Executor to, 1) return the trailer in the partial agreement to Petitioner within thirty (30) days 0f service of the Order, and 2) pay Petitioner $43,000, per the terms of the Final Agreement. II. SURCHARGE OF EXECUTOR 4. The Panies have entered into a Final Settlement Agreement in an effort to amicably settle the dispute. Executor has continually failed in her duties as Executor of the Estate, violated court orders and has admitted to distributing the entirety of the Estate to herself, in Violation of her duties as executor 0f the estate. Despite this, Petitioner agreed to settle the dispute in good faith and accept the $43,000 she is entitled to and no more. 5. Due to the fact final distributions have still not been made pursuant to the Final NNNMNNNNN-x-x-x-x-s-x-x-xAA Agreement and Order dated April 21, 2022, Petitioner filed her Petition to Enforce Settlement Agreement requesting an Order mflmCHAOON—‘OCOQNQCTIAWN—‘O that Executor fulfill her obligations under the agreement and distribute the money in the estate. In response, Executor files an opposition to the Petition to Enforce Settlement. Executor’s Counsel stated in their Opposition that after repeated communication with his client, Executor has still failed to fulfill her obligations, this time failing to pay her attorney for legal fees incurred as a result of his representation of Executor regarding this matter. 6. Executor’s Counsel agrees that a surcharge against Executor is proper; however, it is only a matter of the amount that is in dispute. 7. In Reply, Petitioner reminds the Court of legally significant facts and of the procedural position of the case. 2 REPLY T0 OPPOSITION