Estate of Sanchez - Case Brief

Case Number: H045037
Court: California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District
Date Filed: September 02, 2025

← Back to Case Summary

Holding

The court held that a non‑attorney personal representative may not prosecute, nor appeal, a claim brought on behalf of an estate against third parties in propria persona; such claims must be pursued through counsel, and the appellate court therefore dismissed the appeal.

Narrative

Lead – In a decision that sharpens the line between a personal representative’s statutory authority and the California prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law, the Sixth Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s order striking a partition complaint and dismissed the appellant’s subsequent appeal. The ruling underscores that even when a probate code provision permits a personal representative to file a petition, the representative cannot act as an unlicensed attorney on claims that primarily benefit the estate’s beneficiaries rather than fulfill the representative’s fiduciary duties.

Procedural backdrop – Frank J. Sanchez died in April 2016, leaving a will that bequeathed his separate property and his half of the community estate to his three children—Leslie Ann Peralta, Frank Jr., and Julie—while expressly disinheriting his surviving spouse, Caroline Sanchez. Leslie, the eldest child, filed a petition in Santa Clara County Superior Court to be appointed executor and personal representative under the Independent Administration of Estates Act (IAEA, Probate Code §§ 10400 et seq.). The court appointed her, granting the full powers of an executor.

In January 2017 Leslie filed, in propria persona, a complaint within the probate proceeding seeking partition by sale of the family home on Eulalie Drive, San Jose, and a slew of related causes of action—including breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, and elder‑abuse claims—against Caroline and Nationstar Mortgage LLC. The complaint framed the estate’s undivided interest in the property as a “tenant‑in‑common” claim, invoking Probate Code §§ 850, 855, and 9823(b) as the procedural vehicle.

Caroline and Nationstar moved to strike the complaint, relying on City of Downey v. Johnson (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 775 and Hansen v. Hansen (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 618, which hold that a non‑lawyer personal representative may not appear pro per in actions that are essentially civil claims outside the core probate functions. The trial court agreed, striking the complaint and granting Leslie 20 days to amend, but only if she retained counsel.

Leslie appealed the May 31, 2017 order. While she also sought review of two unrelated orders (denial of a borrowing request and a temporary probate homestead award), those matters were assigned to a separate appeal (H045804) and dismissed for procedural default. The present appeal therefore centers solely on the striking of the partition complaint.

Issues presented – The appellate court was asked to decide whether: (1) Leslie, as executor and personal representative, could litigate the partition and related claims in propria persona within the probate case; and (2), by extension, she could pursue the appeal without counsel.

Court’s analysis

Statutory framework – The court began with the clear prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law: Business & Professions Code § 6125, which bars any non‑licensed individual from representing another in court. The court reiterated the principle from Russell v. Dopp (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 765 that a personal representative is not exempt from this prohibition when acting on behalf of the estate.

The probate code does grant a personal representative broad authority: §§ 850, 855 allow a petition to be filed “when the decedent died in possession of, or holding title to, or having a claim to real property,” and § 9823(b) expressly permits a personal representative to bring an action for partition of property in which the decedent held an undivided interest. However, the code is silent on whether such authority includes the right to appear without counsel when the action is fundamentally a civil claim for the benefit of the beneficiaries.

Case law – The court examined the controlling precedents. In Downey, the appellate court held that a conservator‑executor could not appear pro per in an eminent‑domain suit that was “not an integral part of the probate proceedings.” Hansen reinforced that principle, striking a personal representative’s civil complaint filed outside the probate docket. Both cases left open the question of whether a claim filed within a probate petition under § 850 could be pursued pro per.

The court turned to more recent trust‑law decisions for guidance. Donkin v. Donkin (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 469 rejected the extension of Ziegler v. Nickel (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 545, which barred a non‑attorney trustee from representing the trust in a third‑party lawsuit. Donkin distinguished Ziegler on the basis that the trustee was seeking a court order to interpret the trust, not to enforce a claim against a third party. Similarly, Finkbeiner v. Gavid (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1417 allowed a trustee to file a petition to modify a trust without counsel because the action was intra‑trust and served fiduciary duties.

The appellate panel concluded that Leslie’s partition suit was not a petition to clarify the estate’s internal administration; it was a claim against third parties (Caroline and Nationstar) seeking monetary relief and an accounting for the estate’s interest. The court emphasized that the “primary concern” in the unauthorized‑practice jurisprudence is that a non‑lawyer is representing the interests of others—here, the beneficiaries—rather than merely exercising the executor’s own rights.

Statutory construction – Applying the basic rules of statutory interpretation (People v. Gray, 58 Cal.4th 901), the court read the IAEA and Probate Code provisions as complementary, not contradictory. While the IAEA permits an executor to sell estate property without court supervision, it also contemplates attorney involvement for actions that require court oversight (e.g., § 10501(a) authorizing compensation for counsel). The absence of a specific carve‑out allowing pro per representation in third‑party actions meant the default prohibition applied.

Procedural considerations – The court addressed Leslie’s argument that the appeal itself was permissible because a notice of appeal may be filed by a personal representative without counsel under Probate Code § 1300(k). The panel noted that while the filing of the notice is permissible, the substantive pleadings filed on appeal—briefs, motions, and the underlying petition—must still comply with the unauthorized‑practice rule. The appellate court therefore possessed jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for lack of a lawfully filed opening brief prepared by counsel.

Disposition – The appeal was dismissed. The trial court’s order striking the partition complaint remains in effect, and Leslie must retain counsel to pursue any further action on behalf of the estate.

Implications for probate practice – This decision reinforces a hard line: a personal representative may invoke probate‑code mechanisms to bring actions that are “integral” to estate administration (e.g., accounting, creditor claims), but when the action targets third parties for the benefit of beneficiaries, the representative must be represented by a licensed attorney. The ruling clarifies that the mere filing of a petition under § 850 does not immunize a non‑lawyer from the unauthorized‑practice prohibition.

For practitioners, the opinion serves as a cautionary reminder to assess early whether a contemplated claim falls within the “core probate” category or constitutes a separate civil action. When the latter applies, counsel must be engaged before any pleading is filed, lest the court strike the complaint and the appellate court dismiss the appeal.

Unresolved questions – The court left open whether a personal representative could, in propria persona, pursue a petition under § 850 that seeks a purely declaratory or injunctive relief affecting the estate’s own property without involving third‑party defendants. Future litigation may test the boundary between “integral” probate matters and “third‑party” claims, especially in complex real‑property partitions where the estate’s interest is intertwined with co‑owners.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

Business & Professions Code § 6125 – Prohibition on unauthorized practice of law.
Probate Code §§ 850, 855 – Petitions for probate actions and inclusion of related civil claims.
Probate Code §§ 9820, 9823(b) – Authority of personal representatives to maintain actions for the estate and to bring partition actions.
Probate Code §§ 10500‑10553 – Independent Administration of Estates Act (IAEA) provisions granting executors broad administrative powers.
California Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a) – Dismissal of abandoned appeals.
People v. Gray, 58 Cal.4th 901 (2014) – Principles of statutory construction.

Key Cases Cited

City of Downey v. Johnson, 263 Cal.App.2d 775 (1968) – Non‑lawyer executor may not appear pro per in non‑probate actions.
Hansen v. Hansen, 114 Cal.App.4th 618 (2003) – Reinforces prohibition on pro per representation in third‑party actions.
Russell v. Dopp, 36 Cal.App.4th 765 (1995) – Unauthorized practice of law doctrine.
Donkin v. Donkin, 47 Cal.App.5th 469 (2020) – Distinguishes trustee representation in intra‑trust petitions from third‑party suits.
Ziegler v. Nickel, 64 Cal.App.4th 545 (1998) – Non‑attorney trustee may not represent trust in third‑party litigation.
Finkbeiner v. Gavid, 136 Cal.App.4th 1417 (2006) – Allows trustee to file intra‑trust petitions without counsel.
Doran v. White, 196 Cal.App.2d 676 (1961) – Appellate courts may dismiss abandoned appeals.

Prepared for California probate practitioners seeking concise, authoritative analysis of the appellate court’s clarification on personal representative representation and the limits of pro per litigation within probate proceedings.