Estate of Stoker
Filed 3/3/11 Estate of Stoker CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
| Estate of STEVEN WAYNE STOKER, Deceased. | 2d Civil No. B224558 (Super. Ct. No. PR080076) (San Luis Obispo County) |
| DESTINY GULARTE et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. DANINE PRADIA et al., Objectors and Respondents. | |
Destiny Gularte, Donald Karotick and Robert Rodriguez (appellants) appeal a March 9, 2010 post-judgment order awarding trial court costs of $6,958.86 in favor of respondents Danine Pradia and Darrin Stoker (respondents) after respondents prevailed in a will contest. The trial court granted respondents' petition to probate a 2005 will and rejected appellants' petition to probate a 1997 will. In a companion appeal involving these same parties, we affirmed the judgment. (Estate of Stoker (Mar. 3, 2011, B220317) __ Cal.App.4th __.)
In this second appeal, we affirm the trial court's order granting costs to respondents.
FACTS
The trial court granted respondents' petition to probate a 2005 will and rejected appellants' petition to probate a 1997 will. The court entered judgment against appellants on September 28, 2009. Respondents subsequently filed a memorandum of costs. They sought, among other things, costs for filing fees, deposition costs, ordinary and expert witness fees, costs for the preparation of exhibits, court reporter fees and parking costs.
Appellants filed a motion to strike those costs. The trial court rejected a substantial portion of the costs sought by respondents. It disallowed costs in the total amount of $12,238.43, leaving a balance of recoverable costs of $6,958.86.
DISCUSSION
Costs
A prevailing party is entitled to recover reasonable trial court costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (b)); Boonyarit v. Payless Shoesource, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1192.) Respondents prevailed in the trial court.
Appellants make no claim that the trial court lacked the authority to award costs or that it abused its discretion in deciding the amount. Instead they make only a contingent claim for reversal of the cost order based solely on the result of a companion appeal in this court.
In their opening brief, appellants state, "Should the orders appealed from in B220317 be reversed, the Appellants respectfully request the Court remand the cost award back to the trial court for directions to reconsider its award consistent with the Remittitur in Appeal No. B220317."
We affirmed the judgment in case No. B220317. Because appellants have raised no other issues and have not cited any case authority, they have not shown error and the cost order must be sustained. (Crestmar Owners Assn. v. Stapakis (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1232.)
The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded in favor of respondents.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
GILBERT, P.J.
We concur:
YEGAN, J.
PERREN, J.
Barry T. LaBarbera, Judge
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
______________________________
Law Office of Eric A. Woosley, Eric A. Woosley, Jordan T. Porter for Petitioners and Appellants.
Tardiff Law Offices, Neil S. Tardiff; Law Offices of Dennis J. Balsamo, Dennis J. Balsamo for Objectors and Respondents.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
