Opinion
A168483
04-11-2024
LISA WASHINGTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JOSEPH LEE WASHINGTON, Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RP20083718)
We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to the California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.
GOLDMAN, J.
Lisa Washington (Washington) appeals the probate court's approval of final distributions and payments from the estate of her aunt, who died intestate. Washington's brother, Joseph Lee Washington, was the estate's administrator. He filed a "First and Final Account and Report of Administrator, Petition for Approval of Statutory Commissions, Attorney Fees, Extraordinary Fees and Final Distribution," to which Washington objected. At the conclusion of a hearing in July 2023 at which Washington did not appear, the court entered the challenged order approving the distributions and fees requested.
Although Washington does not have a lawyer representing her in this appeal, "the same rules apply to a party appearing in propria persona as to any other party." (Flores v. Department of Corrections &Rehabilitation (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 199, 205.) Much of the fact section of Washington's opening brief consists of unsupported allegations of a conspiracy involving, among others, the administrator's counsel, probate court judges, clerks and justices of this court, the justices of the California Supreme Court, an insurance company, the military, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, the FBI, two federal judges, the California Highway Patrol, and the police departments of several East Bay cities. The argument section alleges that some or perhaps all of these people and entities violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., and obstructed justice; it also cites Penal Code statutes on attempt and aiding and abetting. We are required to presume that the result in the probate court was correct, and Washington's allegations do not amount to a legal argument, supported by citations to the record and appropriate authority, that could satisfy her burden of showing error. (See Singman v. IMDB.com, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1151; United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 153; Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 106; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B), (C).)
The fact section also contains an assertion that the probate court lacked jurisdiction because, when it held the hearing on the administrator's Petition and issued the order approving it, Washington had a petition for review pending before the California Supreme Court in her prior appeal of the order confirming the sale of her aunt's real property. (See Washington v. Washington (May 30, 2023, No. A166079) [2023 Cal.App. Unpub. Lexis 3118].) An argument made only in passing in an opening brief's statement of facts is forfeited. (Doe v. McLaughlin (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 640, 653.) Even if we were to consider it, what Washington offers is insufficient. When there is a stay pending appeal," 'the trial court is divested of' subject matter jurisdiction over any matter embraced in or affected by the appeal during the pendency of that appeal." (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 196-197.) But Washington's briefing does not address whether there was a stay in the prior appeal (see Prob. Code § 1310), and it appears from the record that her aunt's house had already been sold pursuant to the court's order weeks before Washington filed her notice of appeal on August 16, 2022, of which we take judicial notice. As a result, any stay would have been ineffective, and Washington does not identify a mechanism by which the prior appeal could undo a sale that had already occurred. Because Washington has not addressed how, under these circumstances, the order at issue in this appeal could have affected the prior order approving the sale, she has not carried her burden to show that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter it. (See Varian, at p. 189.)
The Supreme Court did not deny the petition for review until September 2023, and the remittitur from this court could not issue until after it had done so. (Washington v. Washington (Sept. 13, 2023, No. S280890) ; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272(b)(1)(A).)
For the first time at oral argument, Washington asserted that the probate court granted a motion to stay pending appeal, but no such motion or order granting it appears in the record. We were subsequently able to locate an ex parte motion to stay the sale pending appeal (which bears a stamp from the clerk indicating that it was filed on August 19, 2022) in the record filed with her prior appeal, and although no order on the motion is included, the register of actions appended to that record appears to show that it was granted on August 25, 2022. By then, however, the sale had already been completed, and we do not know whether the probate court was ever made aware of that fact.
DISPOSITION
The probate court's order is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
WE CONCUR: STREETER, Acting P. J. HITE, J. [*]
[*] Judge of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.