Estate of Brazeal CA3

California Court of Appeal Apr 11, 2025 No. C100042MUnpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the appellant, a nonparty to the underlying probate and trust actions, failed to demonstrate that the judgments were void on their face or that he had standing to set them aside using extrinsic evidence.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's motions to set aside judgments as void on their face.
Whether a nonparty has standing to move to set aside a judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d).
Whether the court has jurisdiction to review an order denying a motion to expunge a notice of pendency of action.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Smith is not a party to the judgments and has not pointed to authority permitting a nonparty to set aside a judgment or order based on extrinsic evidence under section 473, subdivision (d).”

“The judgment rolls do not indicate why Integrity was served or its role in the Elk Grove property.”

“Because the judgments are facially valid and Smith is a nonparty to the underlying actions, the trial court did not err by denying Smith’s motions to set aside the judgment or order.”

Filed 4/11/25 Estate of Brazeal CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

Estate of DEWEY MICHAEL BRAZEAL, SR., C100042 Deceased.

CAROLYN PUSCHMAN, as Successor Trustee, etc., (Super. Ct. No. 34-2012- 00129898-PR-LS-FRC) Petitioner and Respondent, ORDER MODIFYING v. OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING KARI PACE et al., [NO CHANGE IN Objectors; JUDGMENT]

SHAUN SMITH,

Movant and Appellant.

CAROLYN PUSCHMAN, as Successor Trustee, etc., C100045

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 34-2012- 00130013-PR-TR-FRC) v.

KAREN BRAZEAL, as Successor Trustee, etc., et al.,

Defendants;

SHAUN SMITH,

Movant and Appellant.

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed in this case on March 21, 2025, be modified as follows: 1. In the first full paragraph on page 6, in the fourth sentence beginning “Smith is not a party,” add to the end of the sentence “under section 473, subdivision (d)” so the sentence reads:

Smith is not a party to the judgments and has not pointed to authority permitting a nonparty to set aside a judgment or order based on extrinsic evidence under section 473, subdivision (d).

There is no change in the judgment. Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ ROBIE, Acting P. J.

/s/ RENNER, J.

/s/ FEINBERG, J.

Estate of Brazeal CA3

AI Brief

SHAUN SMITH,

SHAUN SMITH,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

SHAUN SMITH,

SHAUN SMITH,

AI Brief