Borstein v. Ullman
Filed 3/27/06 Borstein v. Ullman CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| NORMA EDWARDS BORSTEIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ALICE ULLMAN, Defendant and Respondent. | B184837 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BP091456) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, H. Ronald Hauptman, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Office of Edgardo M. Lopez and Carlo O. Reyes for Plaintiff and Appellant.
No appearance on behalf of Respondent.
BACKGROUND
Appellant, Norma Edwards Borstein, filed a complaint on April 12, 2005, alleging that the defendant, Alice Ullman, fraudulently obtained the insurance benefits of a life insurance policy of appellant's deceased husband, Alfred J. Borstein, and an automobile that had belonged to him, praying for compensatory and punitive damages, as well as an order enjoining the defendant from transferring her interest in the automobile and insurance policy.[1]
The means by which the defendant is alleged to have practiced this fraud was to have given false information to the preparer of Borstein's death certificate, causing the certificate to recite that Borstein had been a widower at the time of his death, instead of indicating that he was a married man. This, it is alleged, caused the insurance company to deny appellant's claim for benefits, and allowed defendant to apply to the Department of Motor Vehicles to have the automobile transferred into her name without appellant's knowledge, even though Borstein had intended to make appellant a gift of the car and to name her as a beneficiary on his life insurance policy.
The superior court treated the complaint as a petition in probate to determine appellant's claim to the insurance proceeds and automobile. The petition was set for hearing on May 18, 2005, and denied the same day.
On July 18, 2005, in pro. per., appellant filed a notice of appeal from â€
