In a recent appeals filing, Matthew Donkin has lodged a appeal against Annemarie Donkin and Aileen Federizo, acting as Interim Trustee, regarding the management of their grandparents' trust. The appeal was filed in the California 2nd Appellate District on May 30, 2024, under Case ID BP109463.
The dispute centers around two probate orders: one mandating the sale of a property within the trust and another requiring the liquidation of the trust’s assets. Matthew Donkin argues that his contingent interest in the trust entitled him to notice of these proceedings. He claims that because he and other contingent beneficiary grandchildren did not receive such notice, the orders should be considered void. "Neither the Probate Code nor due process required notice to Matthew of the petitions or proceedings resulting in the challenged orders," reads part of the court's decision.
Matthew also disputes Federizo's appointment as interim trustee, asserting it is void due to improper service on any party involved. However, even assuming Matthew has standing to challenge this order, the court concluded it is not void for lack of proper service.
The original trust was established by Rodney E. Donkin and Mary E. Donkin in August 1988 and amended in 2002. The primary beneficiaries after both trustors' deaths were their children: Rodney E. Donkin Jr., Lisa Kim, and Annemarie Donkin. Upon Mary's death in 2005, all portions of the trust became irrevocable.
Matthew's objections are primarily based on what he perceives as insufficient notice to secondary beneficiaries like himself regarding significant decisions about the trust’s assets. He contends that his status as a secondary beneficiary entitles him to statutory and due process notice requirements under California law.
However, according to Probate Code section 17203 and section 15804, only primary beneficiaries—referred to as "living persons"—are entitled to notice. The court found that Matthew’s status as a secondary beneficiary does not statutorily entitle him to such notice since all primary beneficiaries are alive.
Additionally, Matthew argues that due process requires he receive notice because his contingent future interest is a property right protected under federal law. However, citing cases like Roth v. Jelley (2020) and Estate of Reed (1968), which involve more direct adverse effects on property interests than those present here, the court disagreed with Matthew's interpretation.
Regarding relief sought by plaintiffs Annemarie Donkin and Lisa Kim through their legal representative Mark H. Boykin from Rodnunsky & Associates represented by Yevgeny L. Belous for defendant Aileen Federizo; they seek affirmation of orders related to asset liquidation without any penalties or forfeitures tied to no contest clauses within the trust documents.
Judge Ana Maria Luna presided over this case with appellate oversight provided by Judges Rothschild P.J., Bendix J., and Weingart J., ultimately affirming previous probate orders despite objections raised by appellant Matthew Donkin who represented himself pro se while Christopher Donkin made no appearance during proceedings.
Trial court case ID is BP109463 and Appellate court case ID is B323043.