## Facts

- Rochelle H. Sterling and Donald T. Sterling were co-settlors and co-trustees of the Sterling Family Trust, which owned the Los Angeles Clippers.
- The trust provided that a trustee deemed “incapacitated” under an internal definition would cease serving, with incapacity determined by two qualified, independent physicians.
- After public release of Donald Sterling’s recorded discriminatory statements, the NBA imposed a lifetime ban and took steps that threatened the team’s continued ownership and value.
- Donald initially supported and encouraged a sale of the team, but later refused to sign a sale agreement after Rochelle secured a $2 billion offer from Steven Ballmer.
- Rochelle arranged evaluations by a neurologist and a geriatric psychiatrist; both concluded Donald had Alzheimer’s disease and lacked capacity to serve as trustee.
- Rochelle removed Donald as co-trustee pursuant to the trust provisions and petitioned the probate court for confirmation of removal and instructions authorizing the sale.
- After trial, the probate court confirmed Donald’s removal for incapacity and authorized the sale based on exigent circumstances to prevent extraordinary loss to the trust.
- Donald appealed, arguing the incapacity finding was unsupported, the sale authorization was improper, and his attempted trust revocation should have blocked the transaction.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the probate court’s determination that Donald Sterling was incapacitated under the trust’s medical-determination mechanism, justifying his removal as trustee.
2. Whether the probate court properly authorized the sale of the Clippers based on exigent circumstances to prevent extraordinary loss to the trust.
3. Whether Donald Sterling’s attempted revocation of the trust could defeat the probate court’s authority to confirm removal and approve the sale.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the probate court’s order in full.
- It held that the evidence credited by the probate court supported Donald’s removal as trustee under the trust’s incapacity provisions.
- It upheld the finding of exigent circumstances supporting authorization of the sale to prevent extraordinary loss to the trust.
- It rejected Donald’s argument that his attempted trust revocation barred the probate court from sanctioning the sale.
- It concluded Donald did not show reversible legal error under the applicable appellate standards of review.

## Legal Principles

- Where a trust instrument defines incapacity and provides a medical procedure for determining it, courts enforce that mechanism, and a trustee found incapacitated under its terms may be removed as provided by the instrument.
- On appeal, factual determinations and credibility resolutions by the probate court are reviewed for substantial evidence; an appellant cannot obtain reversal by rearguing conflicting evidence.
- Probate courts may authorize trustee action, including expedited disposition of a trust asset, when supported by evidence of exigent circumstances and risk of extraordinary loss to the trust.
- A purported trust revocation undertaken to obstruct a transaction may be ineffective to undo actions taken under operative trust provisions and probate court supervision, particularly where incapacity and exigency findings support the order.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the probate court’s confirmation of Donald Sterling’s removal as co-trustee based on physician-determined incapacity under the trust instrument and affirmed authorization of the Clippers’ sale as a necessary measure to protect the trust from extraordinary loss despite Donald’s attempted revocation.


Sterling v. Sterling, 194 Cal. Rptr. 3d 867 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)