Estate of Curtis
Filed 7/31/06 Estate of Curtis CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| Estate of MARGARET J. CURTIS, Deceased. | |
| JOELLEN JAMES, Petitioner and Respondent, v. STEVEN LEUS, as Executor, etc., et al., Objectors and Appellants; CAROLYN YOUNG, as Administrator, etc., Respondent. |
C049124
(Super. Ct. No. 02PR00818)
|
Steven Leus appeals from, but does not raise any cognizable challenges to, a probate court order filed on February 16, 2005. Instead, he attempts to raise issues pertaining to earlier court orders that either were not appealed in a timely fashion or are nonappealable. Thus, we shall affirm the order of February 16, 2005, and dismiss Leus's purported appeal from the earlier orders.
FACTS
Margaret Curtis died on May 15, 2002. In her will, she had appointed her nephews, Steven and Henry Leus, as executors of her estate. However, the probate court granted Steven Leus's petition to have his brother removed as executor.
Leus then hired JoEllen James to assist him in administering the estate. Between May 16, 2002, and December 18, 2003, James performed a variety of duties. Among other things, she provided bookkeeping services, maintained the estate's real property and prepared it for sale, and prepared personal property for sale. After Leus asked James to resign, he refused to pay her for any of the work she had performed on behalf of the estate.
On June 3, 2004, James filed a petition seeking payment of $48,951.33 for services rendered. She also asked the probate court to order Leus to return certain personal belongings to James.
On June 8, 2004, Leus's attorney, Daniel Sullivan, moved to withdraw as counsel, asserting that Leus had refused to (1) respond to Sullivan's attempts to communicate with Leus, (2) cooperate with the processing of the estate, (3) provide Sullivan with valid contact phone numbers, and (4) sign and return a substitution of attorney form. Fearing that Leus's conduct exposed Leus and Sullivan to potential liability and sanctions, Sullivan believed that he was legally and ethically constrained from continuing to represent Leus. A hearing on Sullivan's motion was set for July 21, 2004; however, on July 15, he sent a letter asking the probate court to drop the matter because Thomas Witte, Leus's new attorney, had advised Sullivan that Witte would be preparing and filing a substitution of attorney form.
Meanwhile, following a hearing on July 14, 2004, the probate court granted James's petition for payment for services rendered and for the return of her personal belongings. The court's order, filed on July 16, 2004, directed Leus to pay James $48,951.33 from the funds of the estate. But the order deferred a decision regarding whether the charges would be allocated as extraordinary fees or ordinary fees chargeable against the executor's ordinary commission. Although Leus was served with a copy of the order on July 19, 2004, he did not file a notice of appeal from the order within 60 days. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2(a).)
On July 21, 2004, Heir Buyout Company (Heir Buyout), to which the beneficiaries of the estate had assigned their interest, filed a petition seeking to remove Leus as the executor of the estate. James submitted a declaration in support of the petition.
On July 28, 2004, after Attorney Witte substituted in as counsel for Leus, the probate court denied Heir Buyout's petition â€
