Mediation Case Law Teaching Videos
Subject Area
Enforcement
Loading...
Media is loading
Document Type
Video
Publication Date
11-22-2022
Recommended Citation
Coben, James, "Breslin v. Breslin, 62 Cal. App. 5th 801, 276 Cal. Rptr. 3d 913 (2021), reh’g denied (April 20, 2021), review denied (July 14, 2021)" (2022). Mediation Case Law Teaching Videos. 41.
https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/dri_mclvideo/41
Breslin.srt (4 kB)
Comments
Playtime: 2:23 minutes
Precluding trust beneficiaries from challenging a mediated settlement because they were notified of the mediation but chose not to attend; dissent deemed the majority’s decision to be an improper terminating sanction against the non-appearing beneficiaries.
Quote from the Court: “Had the Pacific parties appeared at the initial probate hearing, for which they received notice, they would have had the opportunity to object to mediation. Instead, they waited until after the mediation, for which they also received notice, in addition to notices of continuances, to finally object to the result. The dissent expresses concern for the due process rights of parties who ignored these multiple notices, and apparently no concern for the parties who responded to the notices and spent time and effort complying with the probate court's order for mediation.” 62 Cal.App.5th at 807, 276 Cal.Rptr.3d at 918 (emphasis added).
A Clash of Perspectives
Majority Opinion: “The Pacific parties do not claim they lacked notice of the mediation. Had they participated, they would have been informed of all the developments, including the trustee's willingness to sign the settlement agreement. The Pacific parties apparently believe that after the trustee and participating parties have gone through mediation and reached a settlement, they should have been notified before the settlement was signed. Then they could have registered their objection. But that would defeat the purpose of the court-ordered mediation.” 62 Cal.App.5th at 808, 276 Cal.Rptr.3d at 919.
The Dissent: “Here...the probate court exalted principles of forfeiture over Kirchner's express wishes, concluding that the Pacific parties forfeited their rights to the gifts Kirchner wanted them to have because they did not satisfy a requirement Kirchner did not impose: participation in mediation at their expense. In effect, the court imposed a terminating sanction against the nonappearing beneficiaries. The majority countenances this result. I would not.” 62 Cal.App.5th at 810, 276 Cal.Rptr.3d at 920.