ANDREW J. v. TOINETTE
Filed 4/27/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
COPY
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
----
| Estate of ANDREW J. ROSSI, SR., Deceased. | |
| ANDREW J. ROSSI, JR., Petitioner and Respondent, v. TOINETTE ROSSI, Objector and Appellant. |
C049330
(Super. Ct. No. PR75314)
|
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County, F. Clark Sueyres, J. Affirmed.
John A. Hartog for Objector and Appellant.
Horton & Roberts and Neil F. Horton; Rosenberg Law Firm and Richard D. Rosenberg for Petitioner and Respondent.
Continued from Part I…..
We agree with Toinette that specificity is important because the trial court must be able to determine from the section 21320 application whether the proposed action is entitled to safe harbor. However, nothing in the language of section 21320 supports Toinette's argument the proposed petitions must be submitted at the same time as the application. John filed the proposed petitions by fax on December 27, 2004, and January 3, 2005. Thus, the petitions were before the court well before the January 10, 2005, hearing on John's application. While Toinette's attorney claimed the delay â€
