Estate of Musko CA2/4

Filed 9/5/25 Estate of Musko CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

Estate of MUSKO, JOAN, B341049 Decedent. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 23STPB10480) TAYLOR L. CLARK,

Plaintiff and Appellant.

v.

TONJA WOELBER et al.,

Objectors and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephanie Santoro, Judge. Reversed and remanded with instructions. Taylor L. Clark, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance by Respondents.

This case arises from probate proceedings involving decedent Joan Musko and three of her four children, appellant Taylor Clark and objectors Tonja Woelber and Ruth Musko.1 Appellant filed petitions for probate of lost will and to determine whether two letters written by decedent amended or revoked the family trust. The probate court dismissed the petitions, finding that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter as the estate consisted solely of real property located in Pennsylvania. Appellant contends that the probate court erred in dismissing the petition and that it could exercise jurisdiction over the matter because decedent was domiciled in California at the time of her death. We agree. We therefore reverse the dismissal of appellant’s petitions and remand the matter to the probate court for further proceedings. BACKGROUND Decedent and her husband, Ernie Musko, established the Musko Family Trust in 2007, with their four children as beneficiaries and their home in Pennsylvania as the only trust asset. They amended the trust in 2010, removing their son, David, as a beneficiary. Ernie died in 2012. According to appellant, after decedent experienced a “serious health crisis” in 2017, she moved from Pennsylvania to live with appellant in California. Decedent died in Santa Monica, California on May 13, 2023 and was a resident of Los Angeles County at the time of her death. In September 2023, appellant, in propria persona, filed a petition for probate of lost will in Los Angeles County Superior Court. In the petition, appellant alleged that both she and decedent were residents of Santa Monica, California at the time of decedent’s death on May 13, 2023. Appellant estimated the estate’s assets as $100 in personal property and the Pennsylvania real property, valued at $200,100. She also submitted two letters purportedly written by decedent to a Pennsylvania attorney as decedent’s holographic will. In the letters, dated in May and June 2020, decedent requested the attorney’s assistance in preparing a new deed for her