Estate of Stoll
Filed 6/28/06 Estate of Stoll CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| In re the ESTATE of ALAN W. STOLL. | |
| CATHERINE DEE STOLL, Objector and Appellant, v. KEITH A. STOLL, Administrator and Respondent. | G034884 (Super. Ct. No. A197395) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Marjorie Laird Carter, Judge. Affirmed.
Catherine Stoll, in pro. per., for Objector and Appellant.
Donald Klein for Administrator and Respondent.
* * *
I. INTRODUCTION
Catherine Stoll, ex-wife of deceased Alan Stoll and appearing as guardian ad litem for the minor David Stoll, appeals from an order of the probate court dismissing objections to the second account current for Alan Stoll's estate. In essence, Catherine contends that the probate court should have enforced David's creditor's claim for about $54,000 in unpaid child support against the estate's only remaining asset, the estate's interest in a Lake Arrowhead residence.
We affirm because the objections to the accounting were not well taken given the undisputed evidence that Catherine had filed no timely independent action to enforce any of her claims, as required by Probate Code section 9353.
II. BACKGROUND
Catherine and Alan were divorced in 1995. The judgment of dissolution of marriage provided Alan would pay $575 per month in child support, continue to furnish medical insurance, and the couple would share one half of all medical expenses for their two minor children, Alan J. and David. The judgment also determined Catherine had a 50 percent interest in the couple's Lake Arrowhead property.
In January 1997, Alan was ordered to pay $10,000 in child support arrearages. That amount was indeed paid -- from Alan's share of the sale of the family residence in Orange.
With his retirement looming, in late 1997 Alan sought a reduction of his support obligation in the family court. He was successful and the obligation was reduced to $200 per month. In 1998 Alan retired and began receiving Social Security benefits. Alan died about a year later, in May 1999.
Eleven days prior to his death, on May 11, 1999, Catherine filed an abstract of support judgment. The amount of the judgment shown on the abstract was not specified.
About two months later, in July 1999, after Alan's death, Alan's adult son Keith,was appointed administrator of the will. In October 1999 Catherine filed a request for family allowance. The probate court granted her request, and ordered the estate to pay her $500 per month. She also filed a creditor's claim for $54,000 which, at that time, was supposed to represent allegedly unpaid child support, child care, and medical expenses. The claim was rejected by the administrator.
The first account current was filed by Keith in April 2001. The order settling the first account current was filed in July 2001. Catherine did not file any objections to the first account current. In September 2001 the court granted Keith's petition to terminate the family allowance because the estate was insolvent.
Shortly thereafter, Catherine filed a series of creditor's claims for unpaid family allowance, property taxes and maintenance for the Lake Arrowhead property, and unpaid child support. One of the claims for over $82,000 included the $54,000 previously rejected by the administrator for unpaid child support.
Catherine contended her claims were supported by the recorded abstract of judgment received in San Bernardino County eleven days prior to Alan's death. All of the claims were rejected by the estate, and Catherine did not commence any actions to pursue those claims.
Keith filed his second account current on June 3, 2003. The only matters addressed in this accounting were disbursements made at the close of the first accounting period and the request for extraordinary attorney fees for the estate's attorney, Donald Klein. The only property involved in the second account current was the estate's half interest in the Arrowhead property.
In August 2003, Catherine -- acting on her own behalf and not as guardian ad litem for David -- filed an objection to the second account current, claiming the extraordinary attorney fees requested would deplete the estate. Keith filed a motion to dismiss her objections, contending she was not an â€
