Case Number: G063437
Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three
Date Filed: August 31, 2025
Holding
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting self‑representing daughter Jodee S. to present oral objections to the conservator’s final accounting and to the attorney‑fee petition despite her failure to file the required written objections, and that the consideration of those oral statements required reversal and remand.
Narrative
Lead – In a sharply contested probate dispute over the estate of Martha “Marty” A., the California Court of Appeal struck a procedural blow to the Orange County Superior Court, ruling that the trial court erred when it allowed a self‑represented daughter to argue oral objections that she had expressly refused to submit in writing. The decision underscores the appellate court’s insistence that probate courts adhere strictly to procedural safeguards designed to protect due‑process rights in conservatorship accounting and fee petitions.
Procedural background – Richard Huntington, a professional fiduciary, was appointed conservator of both the person and estate of Marty A. after a series of competing petitions by Marty’s children. Huntington’s law firm, the Law Offices of Eric F. Becker, represented him throughout the litigation. After a first accounting was approved in 2021, Huntington resigned as estate conservator but remained conservator of the person and filed a second, final accounting in June 2022, together with a petition for attorney fees on behalf of Becker. The trial court scheduled a hearing on the accounting and fee petition for November 2, 2022, and repeatedly instructed interested parties—particularly Marty’s daughter Jodee S.—to file any objections in writing by a December 15 deadline.
Jodee, however, declined to submit written objections, insisting instead on making “oral objections” at the hearing. The trial court warned that failure to file written objections would constitute a waiver under Rule 7.801 of the California Rules of Court, yet it later permitted Jodee to address the court orally at the closing‑argument hearing on May 23, 2023. The court even allowed her to read a seven‑page statement into the record and later considered those statements when reducing Becker’s fee award from $186,990 to $94,955. Huntington appealed, arguing that the trial court’s reliance on Jodee’s unsolicited oral objections violated procedural rules and prejudiced his fee petition.
Issues presented – (1) Whether the trial court erred in treating Jodee’s oral objections as substantive evidence after she had been warned that failure to file written objections would waive her right to be heard; and (2) Whether that error warranted reversal of the fee‑reduction order.
Appellate analysis – The Court of Appeal applied the standard of abuse of discretion for statutory fee awards, noting that factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence while pure legal questions receive de novo review. The court turned to Probate Code §§ 1043(a)(b) and 2622, which require interested persons to present objections in writing at or before the hearing, and to Rule 7.801, which permits a court to deem unfiled objections waived. The appellate panel emphasized that the trial court had explicitly instructed Jodee to file written objections, set clear deadlines, and warned that non‑compliance would forfeit her right to argue. Jodee’s repeated refusals—first on the fee petition, then on the accounting—triggered the statutory waiver.
Although courts possess inherent authority to modify their own orders, the appellate court held that such a modification must be accompanied by adequate notice, especially where a party’s procedural rights are at stake. Here, the trial court “sua sponte” allowed Jodee to speak without giving the other parties notice or an opportunity to respond, thereby breaching due‑process requirements. The court further noted that the trial court’s own record reflected that Jodee’s oral statements were “hearsay” and “not a substitute for evidence,” yet the trial court nonetheless accorded them “appropriate weight” in reducing the fee award. This contradictory approach, the appellate panel concluded, constituted an abuse of discretion.
The appellate court also rejected the trial court’s reliance on the “personal attacks” narrative, finding that the court improperly allowed Jodee’s unsubstantiated accusations to influence its assessment of Becker’s billing. The court reiterated that attorney‑fee petitions must be evaluated on the merits of the services rendered to the conservatee, not on the litigants’ emotional outbursts.
Disposition and remand – Because the trial court’s consideration of Jodee’s oral objections was improper and prejudicial, the appellate court reversed the fee‑reduction order and remanded the matter for a new determination of the attorney‑fee petition without reference to any oral statements made by Jodee or her sisters. The remand instructions require the trial court to consider only the written objections filed by Judy S. and any other parties, and to conduct an evidentiary hearing if necessary. Each party bears its own costs.
Impact and unresolved questions – This decision reinforces the procedural rigor required in probate accounting and fee disputes, particularly when self‑represented parties are involved. By emphasizing strict compliance with written‑objection rules, the court signals that trial judges cannot “flex” procedural mandates to accommodate emotional litigants without jeopardizing due‑process guarantees. The ruling may prompt conservators and their counsel to more aggressively monitor compliance with objection deadlines and to seek pre‑emptive orders limiting oral argument to matters already in the record.
Nevertheless, the opinion leaves open how courts should handle situations where a self‑represented party persistently refuses to file written objections yet continues to demand a voice at the hearing. While the appellate court stressed the need for notice before deviating from established procedures, it did not delineate a clear remedial pathway for judges who wish to balance fairness with procedural fidelity. Future litigation may test the limits of this balance, especially in emotionally charged conservatorship cases where parties lack counsel.
Referenced Statutes and Doctrines
- Probate Code § 1043(a) & (b) – Requirements for written objections by interested persons.
- Probate Code § 2622 – Waiver of objections to accountings when not filed in writing.
- Probate Code § 2640(d)(1) – Limitations on compensation for conservators and attorneys.
- California Rules of Court, Rule 7.801 – Waiver of objections when written submissions are not made.
- California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115 – Publication restrictions (not directly at issue but noted in opinion).
- Kasperbauer v. Fairfield (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 229 – Abuse‑of‑discretion standard for fee awards.
- Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Assn. v. McMullin (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 982 – Substantial‑evidence review of factual findings.
- Roberts v. United Health Care Services, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 132 – De novo review of pure legal issues.
- Kerns v. CSE Ins. Group (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 368 – Court’s power to modify its own orders.
- In re Emily R. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1344* – Notice requirement for procedural modifications.