Case Number: G063437_markdown
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 a self‑representing party, Jodee S., to present oral objections despite her failure to file the required written objections, and by giving those oral statements weight in reducing the attorney‑fee award.
Narrative
Lead – In a tightly contested probate dispute over the estate of Martha “Marty” A., the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial‑court order that reduced attorney fees after finding the lower court had improperly considered unsworn, untimely oral objections from a self‑represented daughter. The decision underscores the appellate court’s insistence that procedural safeguards governing objections to conservatorship accounts be strictly observed, even where parties are emotionally charged and unrepresented.
Procedural backdrop – The litigation began in 2019 when Marty’s son, Richard A., petitioned to appoint a professional fiduciary, Richard Huntington, as conservator of both person and estate. After a series of competing petitions, settlements, and ex parte motions, Huntington ultimately served as conservator of the estate while Judy E., Marty’s other daughter, was appointed co‑conservator of the person. Huntington filed a first accounting in 2020, which the trial court approved despite objections from Judy and another daughter, Jodee S. A second, final accounting was filed in June 2022, accompanied by a fee petition on behalf of Huntington’s counsel, the Law Offices of Eric Becker.
The fee dispute – Judy filed written objections to Becker’s fee request, alleging excessive billing, duplication of attorney time, and unreasonable paralegal rates. Jodee, representing herself, repeatedly refused to submit written objections, insisting instead on making “oral objections” at the hearing. The trial court repeatedly warned Jodee that failure to file written objections by the court‑set deadlines would constitute a waiver under Probate Code § 1043 and California Rules of Court rule 7.801. Despite these warnings and multiple extensions, Jodee filed no written objection or statement explaining why she should be allowed to argue.
At the May 23, 2023 hearing, the court nonetheless permitted Jodee to read a seven‑page oral statement alleging fraud, corruption, and lack of dementia, and later allowed her to submit a “Verified Summation” after the hearing. The court explicitly stated it had “given weight, but not dispositive weight, to the lack of filed written objections” but nevertheless “considered and gave appropriate weight to the oral objections voiced by [Jodee] during oral arguments.” Relying on those statements, the trial court reduced Becker’s fee award from $186,990 to $94,955, citing “personal attacks” and the “contentious nature” of the litigation as factors diminishing the value of the services rendered.
Issues on appeal – Huntington appealed on two grounds: (1) the trial court erred in treating Jodee’s untimely oral objections as evidence; and (2) the fee reduction was therefore prejudicial. The appellate court applied the standard of abuse of discretion for statutory fee awards (Kasperbauer v. Fairfield (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 229) and reviewed factual findings for substantial evidence (Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Assn. v. McMullin (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 982).
Reasoning – The appellate court emphasized that Probate Code §§ 1043(a)–(b) and 2622 require interested parties to “appear and make a response or objection in writing at or before the hearing,” and that failure to do so “operates as a waiver of any opposition thereto” (Estate of Kirkpatrick’s (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 709). Rule 7.801 further authorizes the court to deem untimely objections waived. The trial court’s repeated warnings, extensions, and explicit order that “failure to file will be treated as a waiver” satisfied the procedural prerequisites for a waiver. By allowing Jodee to argue despite her clear waiver, the trial court “abused its discretion” and violated due‑process principles that require notice and an opportunity to be heard on a fair and predictable schedule (In re Emily R. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1344).
The appellate court also rejected the trial court’s reliance on Jodee’s statements as a basis for reducing fees. The court noted that the fee reduction must be grounded in an independent review of billing records under Probate Code § 2640(d)(1), not on unsubstantiated allegations of “personal attacks.” The appellate panel held that the trial court’s “consideration and weighting” of oral objections—statements that were neither sworn nor supported by admissible evidence—constituted reversible error.
Disposition and forward guidance – The appellate court reversed the fee‑reduction order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. On remand, the trial court must reassess Becker’s fee petition without reference to Jodee’s oral statements, relying solely on the written objections filed by Judy and any other properly filed objections. The court may either issue a new fee award after an independent billing review or, if necessary, hold an evidentiary hearing on the fee application.
Impact – This decision reinforces the procedural rigor required in probate fee disputes, particularly when self‑represented parties are involved. Courts must enforce written‑objection deadlines and cannot, without explicit notice and a clear waiver, admit unsworn oral objections as evidence. Practitioners should counsel clients—especially family members in contentious conservatorships—to file timely written objections or risk forfeiture of their right to be heard on the merits. The ruling also signals that appellate courts will scrutinize fee reductions that hinge on subjective assessments of litigants’ demeanor, insisting instead on objective billing analysis.
Referenced Statutes and Doctrines
- Probate Code § 1043(a)–(b) – Requirements for written objections and court’s discretion to hear them.
- Probate Code § 2622 – Procedure for objections to accountings; waiver upon failure to allege specifically.
- Probate Code § 2640(d)(1) – Limitation on compensation for unsuccessful fee petitions.
- California Rules of Court rule 7.801 – Waiver of objections when untimely.
- California Constitution, Art. I, § 7 – Due‑process guarantee.
Key Cases Cited
- Kasperbauer v. Fairfield (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 229 – Abuse‑of‑discretion standard for statutory 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.
- Estate of Kirkpatrick’s (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 709 – Waiver of objections upon failure to allege.
- Kerns v. CSE Ins. Group (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 368 – Court’s authority to modify its own orders.
- In re Emily R. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1344 – Notice requirement for modifying procedural orders.