Estate of Bushnell
Filed 7/25/06 Estate of Bushnell CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| Estate of Ronald E. Bushnell, Deceased. | H028456 (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. PR42449) |
| ERIC BUSHNELL, as Administrator, etc., Petitioner and Respondent, v. CAROL SLATER, Objector and Appellant. | |
| CAROL SLATER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ERIC BUSHNELL, as Personal Representative, etc., Defendant and Respondent. | H028469 (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. CV144941) |
Ronald E. Bushnell died in a small plane crash on March 6, 2002, leaving four adult children, an estate over $2.5 million in value, no will, and an ex-cohabitant of 23 years, appellant Carol Slater (Slater), who was the mother of the two youngest children. Decedent's second-oldest child, respondent Eric Bushnell (Bushnell), was appointed the personal representative of the estate (case No. PR 42449) which was to be divided equally among the four children after payment of debts and obligations. However, appellant filed a Marvin[1] claim for 50 percent of the estate based upon a nonmarital partnership property agreement pursuant to which she claimed she participated as a partner in Bushnell Logging and its lumber and firewood business. Respondent denied the claim; appellant commenced an independent action in the Santa Cruz County superior court (case No. CV 144941) to contest the rejection; and finally the parties agreed to settle both cases. A disagreement arose over the terms of the settlement, but over appellant's objections, the superior court entered judgment enforcing it, after which the probate court ordered the estate distributed. Appellant now appeals from the judgment in both cases, and respondent requests sanctions for frivolous appeals in both cases. We ordered the two appeals and the motions for sanctions considered together.
BACKGROUND
According to appellant,[2] she lived with decedent from January 1975 until 1997 as husband and wife, during which time they had two children whom they raised together. They accumulated assets of more than $2 million through investments in timber producing land, logging, and, as appellant puts it, â€
