Estate of Lear
Filed 8/30/06 Estate of Lear CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 THREE
| Estate of BLANCHE LEAR, Deceased. IVIN TARNOVE, Petitioner and Appellant. v. DONNA GOLDFARB and JILL RICHMAN, Objectors and Respondents. | B181768 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BP070332) |
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, H. Ronald Hauptman, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Kenneth W. Kossoff for Petitioner and Appellant.
Dempsey & Johnson and Heather M. Noelte for Objectors and Respondents.
INTRODUCTION
In this probate proceeding, petitioner and appellant Ivin Tarnove (Tarnove) appeals a judgment of the probate court. Pursuant to an Antenuptial Agreement (Agreement), Tarnove's now-deceased wife, Blanche Lear,[1] granted Tarnove a life estate in a condominium unit (the condo) in Marina Del Rey, California, which was Blanche's separate property. Blanche's two adult daughters, respondents Donna Goldfarb and Jill Richman (Goldfarb and Richman), have remainder interests in the condo.
Tarnove claims the probate court erred by: (1) ruling that the parties did not enter into a binding settlement agreement with respect to the sale of Goldfarb and Richman's remainder interests in the condo to Tarnove; (2) ruling that Tarnove was obligated to pay a number of expenses related to the condo; and (3) granting the motion of Goldfarb and Richman to remove an attorney-client privilege letter from the court file and replace it with another exhibit on the basis that counsel had inadvertently filed the letter and not intend to waive the privilege.
We affirm the judgment. Substantial evidence supports the probate court's finding that the parties did not enter into a binding settlement agreement with respect to sale of the remainder interest in the condo to Tarnove. In addition, the probate court did not err by ruling that Tarnove was responsible for three types of expenses related to the condo: (1) homeowner's insurance; (2) a monthly payment to Los Angeles County called â€
