Estate of Langman v. Greene
Decision Date | 16 June 2014 |
Docket Number | H038800 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Estate of KIRK LANGMAN, Deceased. DAVID LANGMAN, Petitioner and Respondent, v. MICHAEL GREENE, Objector and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Monterey County
Kirk Langman (Kirk or decedent)1 died without a will and left no surviving children or spouse. Michael Greene (Greene) and David Langman (Langman), the father of decedent, each filed a petition for appointment as the administrator of the decedent's estate and objected to the other's petition. Both petitions requested letters of administration and authorization to administer under the Independent Administration of Estates Act (IAEA) (Prob. Code, § 10400 et seq.).2
One of Greene's grounds for objection was that he was the putative registered domestic partner of the decedent and, therefore, he had priority over Langman for appointment. Under Family Code section 297, subdivision (a), domestic partners are defined as "two adults who have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring." To establish a domestic partnership in California, both persons must "file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State pursuant to [Division 2.5 of the Family Code], and, at the time of filing," meet all other specified requirements. (Fam. Code, § 297, subd. (b).) A surviving domestic partner has top priority for appointment as administrator of his deceased domestic partner's estate. (See §§ 37, 8461, subd. (a).)
At the close of Greene's evidence at the hearing on the petitions, the trial court granted Langman's motion for judgment pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8. The court concluded that Greene and decedent were neither registered domestic partners nor putative registered domestic partners and, therefore, Greene did not have priority over Langman for appointment. It denied Greene's objections. A judgment was entered in favor of Langman and Greene appealed.
On appeal, Greene claims that the probate court erred by granting the motion for judgment without affording him the opportunity to present rebuttal evidence, the court's findings related to his alleged putative status were unsupported by substantial evidence and the product of bias, and the court failed to properly analyze the putative spouse doctrine. Greene further asserts that the court erroneously placed the burden of proof of ownership of personal property on him and the court's finding that the estate did not have any property belonging to him was unsupported by substantial evidence. Lastly, Greene maintains that the court abused its discretion by imposing a discovery sanction of $4,500 on him in connection to respondent Langman's motion to compel Greene's deposition.
We will affirm the judgment.3
On October 11, 2011, Langman filed a petition for letters of administration and authorization to administer his son's estate under the IAEA. Greene filed a written objection to Langman's petition.
Appellant Greene objected to Langman's appointment as administrator of decedent's estate on a number of grounds, including the ground that he had priority to administer the estate as decedent's putative registered domestic partner. He further objected on the ground that Langman had "embezzled from, mismanaged the assets of, and committed fraud on the decedent's estate and objector's property," citing section 8502, subdivision (a).4 The objection contained allegations that Langman had "removed for his own use every important financial and personal document, memento, and item . . . belonging to objector, the decedent or both" from the Pebble Beach residence and "Langman cannot be trusted to include that property in the estate or determine its ownership."5
In support of the latter objection, Greene alleged that he had sold music equipment, which he and decedent had purchased, for $18,000 after Langman and his wife told him that "they considered that all the property in the house belonged to [him] and . . . he should now sell some of [it] . . . so that [Greene] would have sufficient funds on which to live for the next few months."
Greene's objection alleged the Langmans arrived on Friday September 30, 2011, with a sheriff's deputy and threatened that they would have him arrested for committing grand theft and trespassing if he did not vacate the property by Sunday October 2, 2011. It was averred that the Langmans subsequently made a false report of grand theft based on Greene's selling of the music equipment and caused his arrest and sheriff's deputies seized the $18,000, which was never returned to him.
According to the written objection, "the Langmans had a cleaning crew, moving truck, and a dumpster brought to the residence and removed everything of value including [Greene's] pictures, music recordings, artwork, important financial and personal papers, the safe, its contents, and computer in [Greene's] room . . . ." A partial list of allegedly seized property was attached to the document. The objection states "much of the property that was taken by the Langmans was owned by [Greene]."
On December 9, 2011, Greene filed a petition for letters of administration and authorization to administer the deceased's estate under the IAEA. Langman filed a written objection to Greene's petition.
By order filed on February 7, 2012 following a case management conference, the court required Greene to provide to opposing counsel "a list of all personal property to which he claims he has an ownership interest, either individually or through his allegedstatus as a putative registered domestic partner of the decedent Kirk Langman." The court also required Langman to make the personal property that was removed from the decedent's residence and currently in storage available for inventory by Greene and his counsel. An evidentiary hearing was scheduled for April 23, 2012.
On February 29, 2012, Langman moved to compel Greene's deposition and for sanctions in the amount of $5,360 based on the attorney fees incurred to file the motion. The supporting memorandum of points and authorities stated that Greene had "twice refused to have his deposition taken as noticed." A supporting declaration indicated that Greene's deposition was originally set for February 17, 2012 but it was rescheduled to February 28, 2012 to accommodate Greene based on his counsel's representations that Greene was undergoing oral surgery on February 6, 2012 and Greene wanted to make sure that "he would not be under the effects of any oral surgery medication." The declaration indicated that, on February 22, 2012, appellant Greene's counsel had informed opposing counsel that the surgery had not taken place and his surgery date was uncertain because the original oral surgeon had not accepted Greene's insurance and Green was looking for another surgeon. Nevertheless, Greene was physically unable to attend his deposition scheduled for February 28, 2012. Appellant's counsel represented that appellant had " 'ongoing back pain' from a workers' compensation injury" and he lacked pain medication because he was "awaiting reassignment to a new workers' compensation doctor." The declaration stated that Greene had been unwilling to commit to a specific date for deposition despite the pending evidentiary hearing.
Counsel Dennis McCarthy's declaration in support of the sanction request indicated that his hourly rate was $350 and his attorney's fees for preparing and bringing the motion totaled $5,360. That total amount included an anticipated three hours for responding to any opposition to the motion and attending the motion hearing.
The declarations of appellant and his counsel were filed in opposition to the motion to compel and sanction request. Langman filed a reply to the opposition and his declaration.
On March 9, 2012, the court ordered Greene's deposition to be taken on March 20, 2012. The sanction matter was set for hearing on April 6, 2012. On April 6, 2012, after argument, the sanction issue was taken under submission. By written order filed April 10, 2012, the court awarded $4,500 as a sanction to Langman.
Before the hearing on the petitions, appellant Greene filed a number of declarations: (1) the declaration of Jodi Dionne, Greene's half sister, (2) the declaration of Don Dionne, Jodi's husband, (3) the declaration of Fred Greene, Greene's brother, (4) the declaration of Phyllis Greene, Greene's stepmother, (5) the declaration of Stuart Hoffman (6) the declaration of Maria Romanello and (7) the declaration of Matt Sutherland.
The hearing on the petitions and objections began on April 23, 2012. On that date, appellant Greene filed the declaration of Howard Postelthwaite.
On April 24, 2012, respondent Langman filed a legal memorandum in support of his objection to the admission of declarations into evidence.
At the hearing on April 24, 2012, after counsel for respondent Langman called two witnesses out of order, counsel for appellant Greene rested. Respondent's counsel then made an oral motion for judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8. After extensive discussion, the court indicated that it was inclined to grant the motion.
Appellant's counsel indicated that the court should consider the declarations and explained that the declarants, aside from Mr. Dionne (who had testified), were unavailable because they were either out of the country or out of state. Counsel for respondent Langman indicated that there was no evidence that any of the declarants had been subpoenaed to appear at the hearing.
The court asked whether, apart from a...
To continue reading
Request your trial