Estate of Dawson CA2/6

Filed 11/19/24 Estate of Dawson CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

Estate of DORIS ROSE 2d Civil No. B336324 DAWSON, Deceased. (Super. Ct. No. 56-2022- 00567630-PR-LA-OXN) (Ventura County)

DONALD K. DAWSON,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

TABITHA CASTRO,

Objector and Respondent.

Donald K. Dawson (Dawson) appeals from an order denying a petition to rescind the transfer of title of a mobile home and include it and specified funds in the estate of decedent Doris Rose Dawson. (Prob. Code, § 850 et seq.) Dawson contends the trial court erred when it: (1) excluded an expert opinion that a release of ownership of the mobile home was not signed by decedent, (2) failed to find withdrawals from decedent’s bank account were

unauthorized, and (3) failed to find elder abuse. He also contends his counsel provided ineffective assistance, and he was denied equal protection of the law. The order is appealable. (Prob. Code, § 1300, subds. (a) & (k).) We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Dawson is the administrator of the estate of his mother, the decedent. He filed an amended petition to rescind transfer of a mobile home from decedent to her daughter, Tabitha Castro. The amended petition alleged the mobile home was worth approximately $175,000, Castro purchased it for $1, decedent was not competent to transfer the property, and the signature on the release of ownership form was not genuine. It also asked that Castro reimburse the estate for $20,507.56 she allegedly misappropriated from decedent’s bank account and $1,500 for the sale proceeds of decedent’s personal property. (Prob. Code, § 850 et seq.; Estate of Ashlock (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 1066, 1073.) The amended petition also sought penalties of twice the value of the property taken. (Prob. Code, § 859; Ashlock, at p. 1077.) Several witnesses testified at the evidentiary hearing. No court reporter was present and there is no verbatim transcript. Four exhibits were admitted on behalf of Dawson and five exhibits on behalf of Castro. The trial court denied Dawson’s claims. The court ruled it could not find: the signature on the release of ownership was not the signature of decedent, there was fraud regarding the signature, or withdrawals from decedent’s bank account were unauthorized. The court also ruled the elements of elder abuse were not established.