Estate of Asberry CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Mar 26, 2026 No. B340735Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The probate court erred in denying the executor's petition for discharge and termination of probate proceedings under Probate Code section 12251 because the estate held no remaining property subject to administration, rendering the court's requirement for additional accounting or reports an idle act. The court further held that the appellant lacked standing to pursue claims under the California Public Records Act regarding the maintenance of probate notes.

Issues

Whether the probate court erred in denying a petition for discharge and termination of proceedings under Probate Code section 12251 when no estate property remained subject to administration.
Whether the appellant has standing to pursue claims under the California Public Records Act regarding the retention of probate notes.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Under the plain language of section 12251, that factual finding entitles appellant to an order granting the discharge petition.”

“The law neither does nor requires idle acts.”

“Appellant’s claims fall wholly outside the scope of the CPRA’s limited private right of action. He lacks standing to pursue his CPRA arguments.”

Filed 3/26/26 Estate of Asberry CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re Estate of LEO ASBERRY, Deceased. B340735

(Los Angeles County LEO ASBERRY, JR., Super. Ct. No. 22STPB06360) Petitioner and Appellant,

DARRELL ASBERRY,

Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Jonathan L. Rosenbloom, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.

The DLJ Law Firm and Dorian L. Jackson for Petitioner and Appellant.

No appearance for Real Party in Interest and Respondent. ____________________

Courts decide cases by rendering judgements based on statutes and case law. On occasion a literal application of the facts and law squander judicial resources resulting in an unnecessary appeal. In such cases, courts are required to use judgment in the common use of that term. Here, both the law and common sense rendered this appeal unnecessary. Petitioner and appellant Leo Asberry, Jr., appeals from the denial of his petition to discharge him as the executor of his late father’s estate and to terminate probate proceedings (the discharge petition). (Prob. Code, § 12251, subd. (a).)1 There was “no property of any kind belonging to the estate and subject to administration” when the discharge petition was filed. (Ibid.) Appellant was entitled to discharge and termination. (Ibid.) We reverse and remand. The probate court shall enter an order granting appellant’s discharge petition. Appellant also contends that the probate court violated the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 7920.000 et seq.) (CPRA) by failing to “retain and maintain probate notes as part of the permanent court file.”2 We do not consider this argument, as appellant has no standing under the CPRA.

Estate of Asberry CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

DARRELL ASBERRY,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

AI Brief