Conservatorship of Hershberger

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 5/24/13  Conservatorship of Hershberger CA2/1

 

 

 

 

 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115>.

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

DIVISION ONE

 

 
>

Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of RICHARD BEN HERSHBERGER,   _________________________________________________________   EMILY STUHLBARG et al., as Coconservators, etc.,                      Petitioners and Respondents,               v.   MELIKE DEWEY HERSHBERGER,                         Objector and Appellant, .

B241484         (Los Angeles County       Super. Ct. No. BP 124562)

 

            APPEAL
from an order of the href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Los Angeles
Superior Court.  Reva G. Goetz, Judge and
Brenda Penny, Judge Pro Tem.  Affirmed.

_____________

 

            Melike
Dewey Hershberg, in pro. per., for Objector and Appellant. 

            No
Appearance for Petitioners and Respondents.

_____________

 

 

            Melike Dewey Hershberger, whom the superior court has
determined to be a vexatious litigant, appeals from an order entered in this href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">conservatorship proceeding concerning
Richard Hershberger.href="#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]  The underlying facts are described in our
opinion in a previous, related appeal and need not be repeated in detail
here.  (See In re Hershberger (Aug.
31, 2012, B236505) [nonpub. opn.].) 
In summary, Richard suffers from dementia, and two professional
fiduciaries (Emily Stuhlbarg and Richard Norene) currently serve as
conservators of his person and estate. 
In June 2010 (before the conservatorship proceedings were initiated),
Melike picked up Richard from his residence, drove him to Las Vegas, married
him there, and dropped him off at his residence a few days later, having
charged all expenses for the trip to his credit card.  (Ibid.)

            In the
previous appeal, Melike sought reversal of several orders, including the orders
granting the petition for probate conservatorship and her petition for removal
of conservator.  (See >In re Hershberger (Aug. 31, 2012, B236505) [nonpub. opn.].)  On August 31, 2012, we filed our opinion affirming the
orders.  (Ibid.)

            While that
appeal was pending, Melike filed in the trial court a document that
(1) purported to object to the conservators’ accounting filed on February 10, 2012, and (2) sought a
stay of all trial court proceedings pending appeal.  The trial court ruled as follows:  Insofar as Melike’s filing sought affirmative
relief (such as a stay), the court denied the request because she filed it in href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">propria persona without first obtaining
permission of the presiding judge; insofar as Melike was objecting to the
conservators’ accounting, her objections were overruled.  Melike timely appealed from that order.

            Substantial
portions of Melike’s opening brief on appeal raise arguments concerning notice
of certain hearings in this conservatorship proceeding.  Those issues were addressed in the
previous appeal and cannot be reargued in this one.  (See In re
Hershberger (Aug. 31, 2012,
B236505) [nonpub. opn.].)

            Insofar as
Melike seeks to challenge the trial court’s denial of her request for a stay
pending the previous appeal, her appeal is moot, because we filed our opinion
in the previous appeal on August 31,
2012.

            Insofar as
Melike seeks to challenge the trial court’s overruling of her objections, the
appeal lacks merit.  Melike’s objection
document (which is three pages long, including caption and signature pages)
contains no intelligible criticism of the accounting.  Without explanation or supporting argument,
the document asserts that the accounting “has delayed and caused undue burden
and expense on [Melike]” and that Melike “feels that the conservators[’]
February 10, 2012 filing is frivolous and is an attempt to cure deficiencies in
the original action and to obtain costs and expenses related to their errors in
the original action.”  Presented with no
basis for those assertions, the trial court did not err by overruling Melike’s
objections.

DISPOSITION

            The order
is affirmed.  Respondent shall recover
his costs of appeal, if any.

            NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED.

 

 

 

                                                                                    ROTHSCHILD,
J.

We concur:

 

 

 

            MALLANO,
P. J.

 

 

 

            CHANEY,
J.