Petition for Order Award Costs, Reimbursement, and Return of Beneficiary Funds
Case No. 23PR194132 Petition for Order Award Costs, Reimbursement, and Return of Beneficiary Funds against Respondent H.W. Spencer Hsieh
I. BACKGROUND Petitioner Andrey Jivsov (“Petitioner”) initiated this case by filing a petition to probate a purported will of WeiWei Hsieh (“Decedent”) signed in 2020. The petition was not opposed and on April 6, 2023, the court admitted Petitioner’s proffered will to probate and issued letters testamentary. The 2020 will leaves the entirety of the estate to Fiona Jivsov (“Fiona”), Petitioner’s and Decedent’s daughter.
On August 7, 2023, H.W. Spencer Hsieh (“Respondent”), Decedent’s former husband, filed a petition for revocation of probate of will, to suspend and remove Petitioner as executor of Decedent’s estate and trustee of a trust of Decedent’s executed in 2020, to determine interference with expected inheritance, and alleging claims for return of estate property, wrongful taking of estate property, conversion, elder abuse, fraud, misappropriation of estate property, breach of fiduciary duty, and constructive trust.
Respondent asserts that Decedent executed a valid trust in 2022 a few days before she committed suicide and, therefore the 2020 will is not the operative will (“Respondent’s Petition”). The purported beneficiaries of the 2022 trust are Fiona Jivsov and Respondent. Petitioner has opposed Respondent’s Petition, contending, inter alia, that the trust proffered by Respondent is invalid on multiple grounds.
The court granted Petitioner’s unopposed request to bifurcate trial on Respondent’s Petition as follows: (1) phase one: Respondent’s standing, jurisdictional and procedural issues, and the preclusive effect of a Nevada court order invalidating the trust Decedent executed just days before her death and (2) phase two: the merits of Respondent’s Petition. After trial, the Honorable Duong issued an order finding in Petitioner’s favor as to phase one.
Thereafter, on February 25, 2026, Petitioner filed a memorandum of costs. On April 13, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition entitled “Petition for Order Awarding Costs, Reimbursement, and Return of Beneficiary Funds Against Respondent H.W. Spencer Hsieh” (“Cost Petition”). On July 14, 2026, Respondent filed an opposition to the Cost Petition.
Currently before the court is Petitioner’s Cost Petition.
II. PROCEDURAL VIOLATION On June 17, 2026, the Honorable Saban ordered that the Cost Petition be heard on the law and motion calendar. Judge Saban also ordered that Respondent file his opposition by end of day on June 17, 2026. The Court notes procedural violation by Respondent, who filed opposition on July 14, 2026.1 In violation of the court order, the Respondent’s paper is over five weeks late. Additionally, per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) opposition papers were to be filed by July 9, 2026.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, subdivision (d) states, “No paper may be rejected for filing on the ground
1 The opposition is improvidently titled, “HW Spencer Hsieh’s Opposition to Andrey Jivsov’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Tax Costs[.]” The court notes that the party prevailing at trial generally files a memorandum of costs and the opposing party files a motion to strike or tax costs. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)&(b)).
that it was untimely submitted for filing. If the court, in its discretion, refuses to consider a late filed paper, the minutes or order must so indicate.”
Here, the Court balances the totality of circumstances, including judicial economy to avoid the expenditure of any further judicial resources, the court will continue the hearing for consideration of the motion and opposition on its merits. However, the Respondent is hereby admonished to comply with Rule of Court and Code of Civil Procedure. Any future violations may result in the court’s refusal to consider untimely filed papers.
III. CONCLUSION The hearing on the Cost Petition is hereby CONTINUED. The parties and/or their counsel are ordered to appear, in person or remotely, to select a new hearing date. The Court will prepare the formal Order.
Calendar Line # 2 Case Name Declaration of Trust of Robert G. Cosgrove and Marian V. Cosgrove, dated August 17, 1987