Filed 4/11/18 Estate of Marsh CA4/3




NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


Estate of MONROE F. MARSH, Deceased.

STEPHEN D. MARSH, as Executor, etc., et al.,

Petitioners and Respondents,

v.

MICHAEL A. WEISS, Individually and as Executor, etc.,

Objector and Appellant.


G054553

(Super. Ct. Nos. 30-2009-00331535)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, David L. Belz, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Michael A. Weiss in pro. per. for Objector and Appellant.
Law Offices of Stephen M. Magro, Stephen M. Magro and Andrew C. Kemper for Petitioners and Respondents.

This is the companion appeal to Estate of Marsh (April 11, 2018, G054796) [nonpub. opn.] (Marsh 9), and the opinions will be filed concurrently. Both appeals arise from probate court orders made during the administration of the estate of Monroe F. Marsh (Monroe) following his death in 2009. In this appeal, Michael A. Weiss, appearing individually and as the executor for the estate of his deceased mother Jane L. Marsh (Jane), challenges a January 10, 2017, minute order approving two petitions seeking a preliminary distribution of Monroe’s estate. A few weeks after the January 2017 order, the probate court signed and filed a formal order on February 21, 2017, regarding the exact same subject matter. Weiss filed a separate appeal from the February order, which we considered in our Marsh 9 opinion.
Stephen D. Marsh and Damon Marsh, the executors of Monroe’s estate (respondents), filed motions to dismiss and requests for judicial notice in these companion appeals (as well as other related requests for judicial notice). We have considered Weiss’s opposition to the motion and objection to the request for judicial notice filed in this appeal and reach the same conclusion as in our Marsh 9 opinion. The motion to dismiss must be granted because it is the law of the case that Weiss lacks standing to object to the distribution of an estate in which he has no interest. We also order sanctions imposed against Weiss for having pursued this frivolous appeal.
FACTS AND LEGAL ANALYSIS
In this opinion, we find it unnecessary to recite the facts and procedural background of this probate matter. This information has been set forth at length in our seven prior unpublished opinions, and for good measure again repeated in our companion opinion, Marsh 9, supra, G054976. We incorporate by reference these detailed factual summaries into our opinion.
Suffice it to say, Weiss’s eighth and ninth appeals concern the same subject matter that was repeated in two consecutive court orders. First, there was the probate court’s minute order filed on January 10, 2017, approving a preliminary distribution of Monroe’s estate. Second, there was a formal order also regarding that distribution, prepared by respondents, which was signed and filed by the probate court on February 21, 2017. In light of the above, Weiss’s eighth and ninth appeals encompass the same law of the case and jurisdictional standing issues and can be resolved using the same legal analysis.
In Marsh 9, supra, G054976, we granted the motion to dismiss due to Weiss’s lack of standing, which is a jurisdictional defect that mandates dismissal. We reasoned the final legal conclusion Weiss lacks standing became the law of the case following our unpublished opinion in Marsh 6, supra, G052208. We incorporate here by reference our detailed legal analysis and conclusions regarding law of the case in Marsh 9. Because Weiss raises similar complaints in each appeal, we also incorporate by reference our consideration and rejection of Weiss’s contentions. As stated in Marsh 9, the law of the case must be adhered to by the trial court and in subsequent appeals. (See also Investors Equity Life Holding Co. v. Schmidt (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1377.)
SANCTIONS
On January 18, 2018, in compliance with the procedural requirements set forth in In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637 (Flaherty), we directed Weiss to show cause why this court should not, on its own motion, impose sanctions against him in both the current appeals—case Nos. G054553 (Marsh 8) and G054796 (Marsh 9)—pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.276, payable to respondents and to this court, for having filed frivolous appeals or appealing to cause delay, and for other violations of the California Rules of Court. In Marsh 9, supra, G054976, we provide a detailed written statement of reasons required by Flaherty for imposition of sanctions against Weiss for both appeals, which we incorporate by reference into this opinion. (Flaherty, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 654.) Based upon those findings, we conclude Weiss is to be sanctioned as follows: Weiss is to pay sanctions to respondents in the amount of $37,059 in case No. G054553 and $19,795 in case No. G054796, and Weiss is to pay sanctions of $8,500 to the clerk of this court for each appeal. (See Diaz v. Professional Community Management, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1217.)
DISPOSITION
Having found Weiss lacks standing to object to the distribution of an estate in which he has no interest, respondents’ motion to dismiss the appeal in case No. G054553 is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Respondents shall recover their costs on appeal.
As sanctions for bringing this frivolous appeal in case No. G054553 and unreasonably violating the Rules of Court, Weiss shall pay $37,059 to respondents. Weiss shall also pay $8,500 to the clerk of this court and the clerk of this court is directed to deposit said sums in the general fund. All sanctions shall be paid no later than 15 days after the date the remittitur is issued.
Attorney Michael A. Weiss and the clerk of this court are each ordered to forward a copy of this opinion to the State Bar upon return of the remittitur. The clerk of

this court shall also notify attorney Michael A. Weiss this matter has been referred to the State Bar. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 6086.7, subd. (a), 6068, subd. (o)(3).)




O’LEARY, P. J.

WE CONCUR:



MOORE, J.



THOMPSON, J.