Williams v. Bowie CA1/2

Filed 6/13/25 Williams v. Bowie CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

JOHN R. WILLIAMS, as Successor Trustee, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, A166994

v. (Contra Costa County REMONIA A. BOWIE et al., Super. Ct. No. MSP21-00170) Defendants and Appellants.

Remonia Bowie and Frank Bowie appeal from a probate order granting a petition for instructions regarding the Mildred Williams Trust dated December 8, 2017, and authorizing the sale of the trust’s real property in Oakland, California, where Remonia and Frank live.1 In their opening briefs, Remonia and Frank make conclusory assertions of error without adequate, or in some cases any, factual or legal support and therefore forfeit all appellate arguments. To the extent we can understand any arguments, they have no merit. We affirm.

1 Some family members share the same last name, so we use first

names for clarity. We intend no disrespect.

1

BACKGROUND On December 8, 2017, Mildred Williams executed a revocable trust, which provided for the equal distribution of her estate to her four children: Remonia (Frank’s mother), John Williams, Donald Williams, and Greta Strong. After Mildred’s passing in December 2020, John became the successor trustee. On February 26, 2021, John served a notice to creditors and a notice of trust administration on the trust’s beneficiaries and the heirs to Mildred’s estate, including Remonia and Frank. In response, Roberto Otapia filed a creditor’s claim for $30,611.76 for “care provider services.” Although John, as trustee, filed an allowance for the claim, the trust did not pay it because “the only asset” of Mildred’s estate was the Oakland property, which would need to be sold to pay the claim. Thus, on April 2, 2021, John filed a notice of proposed action, indicating an intent to charge Remonia—the only trust beneficiary living at the property2—“reasonable rent” in the amount of $3,200 per month. Neither Remonia nor Frank filed an objection to the notice. John filed a second notice of proposed action on August 9, 2021, advising that he sought to sell the Oakland property, estimating an “as is” value between $550,000 and $750,000. On September 22, 2021, Remonia filed objections to the second notice, finding it “hard to believe that no other assets” were in the trust. As a result, on November 9, 2021, John filed a verified petition for instructions to resolve Remonia’s objection and authorize the sale of the Oakland property. The petition included an accounting for the period of