A family trust provision designed to foster peace among siblings has instead ignited a fierce legal battle. On August 23, 2024, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Five, heard a case filed by Silvio Garaventa Jr. and others against Richard Mangini, the trustee of their late mother Mary C. Garaventa's family trust.
The plaintiffs argue that the term "Hostile Acts" in their mother's trust does not apply to actions taken in an official capacity as board members of the family business. The defendant, Father Richard Mangini, who serves as the Special Trustee for Hostile Acts, disagrees. This dispute is part of a broader conflict among Mary’s five children—Silvio Garaventa Jr., Marie Louise Adler, Louisa Binswanger, Joseph Garaventa, and Linda Garaventa Colvis—over control and management of their substantial inheritance.
Mary C. Garaventa included a unique provision in her trust to address potential hostility among her children by appointing a Special Trustee for Hostile Acts. This trustee has the authority to label certain actions as hostile and suspend distributions from the trust to any sibling deemed guilty of such acts. Despite Mary's intention to maintain familial harmony, this provision has been weaponized by her children in numerous allegations and lawsuits against each other.
In 2018, three siblings—Silvio, Marie Louise, and Louisa—voted to terminate Joseph and Linda’s husband Clark from their positions as senior managers in the family business. Linda subsequently requested that these votes be considered hostile acts under the terms of the trust. The Special Trustee agreed but deferred any consequences pending litigation outcomes.
Silvio and Louisa petitioned for a ruling that "Hostile Acts" should not include actions taken in an official capacity as board members. The probate court disagreed with them based on Mary’s clear intent expressed in the trust document: “A Hostile Act is any intentional act by an issue of the Trustor that materially and adversely affects the peace and harmony of other lineal descendants.” Given Mary's concern over potential conflicts within both personal and business contexts involving her children, it was determined that she intended for this provision to cover all forms of hostility.
The plaintiffs are seeking relief from what they perceive as an overreach by Father Mangini in his role as Special Trustee. They argue that his lack of business experience makes him unfit to judge actions taken within a corporate context. However, this argument was dismissed since his role is limited to determining whether an act is hostile under the terms set forth by Mary.
Ultimately, while affirming most parts of the probate court's order regarding how hostile acts should be interpreted within this specific family dynamic context involving significant financial interests tied up with their company’s operations—the appellate court also directed minor modifications concerning procedural details about who requested certain hearings initially (Joseph & Linda).
Judges presiding included Simons J., Jackson P.J., Burns J., with Case ID A164692 being central throughout proceedings held at Contra Costa County Superior Court under Super Ct No MSP15-02131.