Opinion
H050254
06-30-2023
Estate of FREDERICK JOSEPH BOURGEOIS III, Deceased. v. JACQUELINE M. BOURGEOIS, as Executor, etc., Objector and Appellant. DEBORAH A. MALKIN, Petitioner and Respondent,
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. 17PR00110)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GROVER, J.
We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of Judicial Administration, Title 8, Standard 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-855.)
Appellant Jacqueline Bourgeois, as the executor of an estate, retained respondent Deborah Malkin as counsel to assist in administration of the estate. In May 2022, Malkin petitioned the trial court for payment of ordinary and extraordinary fees and costs related to her work as counsel for the estate. The trial court granted the petition after a June 2022 hearing, at which Bourgeois orally objected. At the same hearing, the trial court granted Malkin's motion to be relieved as counsel. Bourgeois appeals the order of payment to Malkin, arguing-among other things-that the attorney-client relationship actually ended on April 4, 2022 and Malkin is not entitled to payment for services performed after that date.
In her opening brief, Bourgeois makes various arguments but does not support them with citations to legal authority. We therefore treat those arguments as waived. (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793.) "When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, 'it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.'" (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408, quoting Atchley v. City of Fresno (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 635, 647.)
We note that even if we were to consider arguments made by Bourgeois for the first time in her reply brief, which does contain citations to two cases as well as numerous ethics rules and opinions, we would reject those arguments as unsupported by the record. Bourgeois bases her appellate contentions on details of the attorney-client relationship between Malkin and the estate, and sets forth her account of that relationship in her briefs, but the facts she relies on are merely asserted without record support. The clerk's hearing minute order also indicates that Bourgeois orally objected to Malkin's petition at the hearing, and that the trial court considered her objections before granting the petition. At a minimum, we would require a transcript of the hearing in order to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering payment of extraordinary fees under Probate Code section 10811. Yet Bourgeois has elected to proceed without a record of the oral proceedings in the trial court. As the party challenging the award of fees and costs, Bourgeois bears the burden of providing us with "an adequate record to assess error." (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295.) She has not done so.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. Costs are awarded to respondent by operation of California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subdivision (a)(1).
WE CONCUR: Greenwood, P. J., Lie, J.