Colvis v. Binswanger CA1/5

── Colvis v. Binswanger CA1/5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 21, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/21/26 Colvis v. Binswanger CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE LINDA GARAVENTA COLVIS et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, A172824 v. (Contra Costa County LOUISA BINSWANGER, as Trustee, Super. Ct. No. MSP15-02131) etc., Defendant; GARAVENTA ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant. Garaventa Enterprises, Inc. (Company) appeals from the probate court’s order finding the Company is not an “interested person” (Prob. Code, § 48)1 and therefore lacks standing to participate in currently pending proceedings in this trust litigation. We affirm. 1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Probate Code. 1  BACKGROUND We recite only the background facts necessary to our resolution of this appeal, and begin by quoting from one of our prior opinions in this highly contentious matter:2 “During their lifetimes, Silvio Garaventa, Sr., and Mary Garaventa established the Garaventa Family Marital Trust (Trust). Silvio, Sr., died in 1998 and Mary restated the Trust in 2013, before her death in 2015. One of their five children, . . . Louisa, is the sole successor trustee under the terms of the Trust (Trustee). Their other children are Silvio, Jr., . . . Marie, Joseph, and Linda. [¶] The Trust provides that after Mary’s death, the Trust assets shall be distributed equally to five subtrusts, each benefitting one of the five siblings as an income beneficiary, with the remainder going to that sibling’s children. The Trust’s largest asset is a 70 percent ownership interest in [the Company]. Ownership of the remaining 30 percent of the Company is split equally among the five siblings, who each also sit on the Company’s board of directors.” (Binswanger v. Colvis (Oct. 29, 2025, A172554) [nonpub. opn.], fns. omitted.) In addition to the Trust holding a supermajority ownership interest in the Company, it also is in debt to the Company for loans made to the Trust. (Ibid.) The Trust estate has not yet been distributed to the subtrusts. Louisa, as Trustee, has exercised her control over the Trust’s supermajority ownership interest in the Company to take or decline to take certain actions involving the Company. (See Binswanger v. Colvis, supra, A172554.) This has generated a substantial amount of controversy—and litigation—among 2 As in our previous opinions, for convenience, we refer to all family members by their first names. No disrespect is intended. 2 the siblings. (See Garaventa v. Mangini (Aug. 23, 2024, A164692) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2022, Linda and Joseph filed a petition seeking an order instructing Louisa as Trustee to either apply for a loan on behalf of the Company to repay an estate tax debt owed by the Trust, or to borrow funds from the Company to satisfy that debt. The Company filed a brief seeking standing as an interested person under section 48. The court held section 48 did not apply to trust proceedings, and this court subsequently reversed and remanded “for the probate court to determine whether the Company is an ‘interested person’ pursuant to section 48.” (Colvis v. Binswanger (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 393, 399.)