Schloegel v. Schloegel

Filed 2/21/07  Schloegel v. Schloegel CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

            Lloyd W. Schloegel appeals from what appears to be the probate court's dismissal without prejudice of a motion for (1) certification of trust and for copy of trust instrument, and (2) an annual payment of $28,000 from the purported trust.  Mr.  Schloegel asserts he is the beneficiary of a trust consisting of salary payments he received from the United States Intelligence Service for the past 28 years; that the San  Francisco Probate Court is in control of this trust; and that it is shirking its duties under Probate Code sections 17200 and 16062, subdivision (a) in failing to declare the existence of the trust and order that he be paid $28,000 annually, as he contends the superior court was ordered to do by the Supreme Court of both the United States and California. 

            Mr. Schloegel, who is representing himself in this action, has been given several opportunities to file an opening brief that complies with the formatting requirements of the California Rules of Court and contains adequate citations to the record, citation to legal authority, and pertinent intelligible legal argument.  His final effort to file a complying opening brief, filed on October 2, 2006, unfortunately falls far short of satisfying these requirements, which are imposed to enable this court to conduct a meaningful review of the lower court proceedings.  Although Mr. Schloegel cites to some other documents he filed in the superior court action, many of his factual assertions are still without citation to, and/or support in, the limited record provided to us.  It is at least equally problematic that his brief is devoid of either citation to pertinent legal authority or cogent argument relating controlling legal principles to the facts.  Mr. Schloegel's supplemental statement, received by this court on November 30, 2006, does not cure these deficiencies.  Faced with this level of inadequacy in the opening brief, after multiple opportunities to file a brief that complies with the California Rules of Court, we are compelled to deem Mr. Schloegel's assertions on appeal to have been abandoned.  (Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1119-1120;Strutt v. Ontario Sav. & Loan Assn. (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 866, 873; Fox v. Erickson (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 740, 742; see generally 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, §  589, pp. 624-625; §  594, pp. 627-628.)  In light of our disposition, we also deny as moot Mr. Schloegel's motion for expedited favorable decision.

DISPOSITION

            The ruling of the probate court is affirmed. 

                                                                                    _________________________

                                                                                    Siggins, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Parrilli, Acting P.J.

_________________________

Pollak, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.