Bent – Probate

asserts the details of any relationship or friendship between petitioner and his counsel before counsel was retained “are probative of potential collusion or undue influence affecting Ms. Justin’s estate and the administration and litigation of the Trust, and they may bear on bias, credibility, and ethical issues.” (Motion at 8:18-20.) The court would appreciate a fuller explanation of this statement.

Petitioner, on the other hand, should be prepared to address whether her efforts in the meet and confer process satisfied the statutory requirements.

9 Bent – Probate; 30-2024-01429924 MOTION COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES (2)

Petitioner James Sullivan’s Motion to Compel James C. Bent to Answer Form Interrogatories, etc. (ROA 123) is DENIED.

Petitioner James Sullivan’s Motion to Compel James C. Bent to Answer Special Interrogatories, etc. (ROA 124) is DENIED.

Petitioner sought to compel James C. Bent (Bent) to respond to special and form interrogatories. Responses were served on 5-12-26—after the motion was filed but before the hearing. (ROA 53.) Accordingly, the requests to compel responses are denied as moot.

The court also denies the request for sanctions. The proofs of service attached to the subject discovery show service to Bent only at 13250 Cholla Road, Whitewater, California 92282. However, Bent does not reside at that address. Prior to service of the discovery, Bent filed and served one document in this proceeding, a “Motion for Continuance of Appointment of James T. Sullivan as Administrator.” (ROA 98.) That document showed only an email address; no physical address was included. Because the discovery was not properly served on Bent, the request for sanctions is DENIED.

In his opposition, Bent notifies the court and the parties that—for any future filing—he can be served at P.O. Box 273, Rancho Mirage, California 92270.

The court directs the clerk to give notice of this ruling.