Estate of Reed v. Reed
Decision Date | 08 November 2017 |
Docket Number | A148678 |
Parties | ESTATE OF Victor REED, Deceased. Daniel Reed, Petitioner and Respondent, v. William Reed, Objector and Appellant; Shelley Ocaña, as Executor, etc., Respondent. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Certified for Partial Publication.*
Knitter & Knitter, David G. Knitter ; William Reed, in pro. per., for Objector and Appellant.
Friedemann Goldberg, Stephanie Barber Hess, John N. MacLeod, Santa Rosa; Ballard Law Office and Benjamin H. Ballard, San Francisco, for Petitioner and Respondent.
Spaulding McCullough & Tansil, Gregory G. Spaulding, Carmen D. Sinigiani, Santa Rosa, for Respondent Shelley Ocaña.
In this probate case, William Reed appeals a 2016 statement of decision removing him as the personal representative of the probate estate. William had previously been removed pursuant to an order of the trial court issued in April 2015, which explicitly referred to a forthcoming written decision that would set forth the basis for the removal order. In the published portion of this opinion, we reject respondents' argument that the April 2015 order was immediately appealable because we conclude the trial court had expressly reserved jurisdiction to issue a further statement of its reasons and the order was therefore not final. In the unpublished portion, we affirm the trial court's rulings.
William and Daniel Reed1 are the children of Victor Reed (Decedent), and are identified in Decedent's will as the beneficiaries of his estate (the Estate). In 2010, the probate court appointed William as the personal representative of the Estate.
In 2014, Daniel filed a petition alleging that, although William was appointed as personal representative of the Estate in July 2010, he had not yet filed any reports on the status of the administration of the Estate. The petition also alleged multiple notices of default had been recorded against certain real property owned by the Estate, William had not rented out the real property or otherwise made it productive, and Daniel did not know the status of the remaining assets of the Estate. The petition sought to compel William to file an inventory and appraisal, order him to reimburse the Estate for losses incurred due to his conduct, and remove him as personal representative.
Trial on the petition was held in March 2015. At the conclusion of the trial, the court orally announced its decision to remove William as personal representative and to appoint Shelley Ocaña in his place. The final statement of decision (the Statement of Decision) issued in April 2016. William appealed from the Statement of Decision.2
Respondents challenge the appealability of the Statement of Decision. William relies on Probate Code section 1300, subdivision (g), which provides that an order "[s]urcharging, removing, or discharging a fiduciary" is appealable, and section 1303, subdivision (a), which provides that an order "[g]ranting or revoking letters to a personal representative," with exceptions not relevant here, is appealable. (See also Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(10) [ ].)
Respondents argue that statements of decision are nonappealable. This is effectively an argument that the appeal is premature. We reject this contention.
( Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 894, 901, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 534, 152 P.3d 1109.)
The Statement of Decision includes a section entitled "Orders," which includes the following: "Finds that it is in the best interest of the Estate to remove [William] from his position as executor of the Estate." This is most reasonably construed as an order removing a fiduciary, an appealable order under the Probate Code. ( Prob. Code, § 1300, subd. (g).) Because the Probate Code provides for an appeal from an order removing a fiduciary, the appeal should not be dismissed on the ground that the order appears in a statement of decision rather than a separate order or judgment.
Respondents next argue the final order removing William as personal representative issued in April 2015 and, because William did not file a timely notice of appeal from the April 2015 order, this court lacks jurisdiction to review that order now.
At the conclusion of the March 2015 trial, the trial court issued an oral ruling finding William should be removed as personal representative. Because the Estate was in the process of negotiating the sale of real property and the court did not want William's removal to be an impediment to the sale, the court suspended William's powers as personal representative except for those powers connected to signing documents regarding the sale of the property in question. The court appointed Ocaña as executor, effective the day after escrow closed. William requested a statement of decision and the court directed Daniel to prepare one.
In April 2015, the parties returned to court. The sale of the Estate's real property was not yet final but the court, after finding William had exceeded his limited retained powers by signing for a mechanic's lien on the Estate property, suspended all of his powers as personal representative with the exception of the power to write an insurance check for the real property.3 The court's written order provided William "be removed effectively immediately after he has paid approximately $233 from estate funds toward premise[s] insurance, as he has represented that it is due April 8, 2015" and ordered "the immediate appointment" of Ocaña as personal representative of the Estate. The written order further provided: "A written tentative decision addressing the issues covered by paras. 1–9 and confirming the court's announcement of its decision from the bench on March 17, 2015 [the date of trial] as modified April 1, 2015 [the date of the mechanic's lien hearing] will be issued separately." Paragraphs 1 through 9 of the proposed order, which the trial court struck out, were proposed findings regarding William's conduct as personal representative of the Estate, including the finding that "it is in the best interest of the Estate to remove [William]." Also in April 2015, the court issued letters of administration to Ocaña. The Statement of Decision issued one year later, in April 2016.
Respondents argue the court's April 2015 order removing William as personal representative was immediately appealable, and William's failure to appeal that order renders the current appeal untimely.
"The orders listed as appealable in the Probate Code must be challenged timely or they become final and binding." ( Estate of Gilkison (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1450, fn. 5, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 463.) ( Laraway v. Pasadena Unified School Dist. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 579, 583, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 213 ( Laraway ).)
In this case, however, a statement of decision was requested, and the April 2015 order removing William explicitly referred to a forthcoming written decision setting forth the basis for the removal order. ’ ( Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, 981–982,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Armuress Sapp v. Rogers
...issued to the personal representative are appealable. ( Prob. Code, §§ 1300, subd. (g), 1303, subd. (a) ; Estate of Reed (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1122, 1125-1126, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 27 ; see Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(10) [appeal may be taken "[f]rom an order made appealable by the Proba......
-
Beverly v. Riverside Cnty. Pub. Adm'r
...'[t]he orders listed as appealable in the Probate Code must be challenged timely or they become final and binding.'" (Estate of Reed (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1122, 1127.) in challenging the trial court's authority to appoint a public administrator to administer decedent's estate, plaintiff exp......
-
Law Offices of Gary Kurtz v. Markowitz
...on disputedfactual issues support the judgment as a matter of law." (Thompson, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at p. 982; accord, Estate of Reed (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1122, 1128.) "The trial court is not required to respond point by point to the issues posed in a request for statement of decision. The......
-
Basmajian v. Adelmann
...binding. They may not be collaterally attacked in a subsequent appeal from the final order of distribution."]; see alsoEstate of Reed (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1122, 1127 [" 'The orders listed as appealable in the Probate Code must be challenged timely or they become final and binding.' . . . '......