In Re Estate of Regli

17 Cal.Rptr.3d 514 (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 878 ESTATE OF Edward U. REGLI, deceased.

Michael Muessig, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Julia R. Muessig, Objector and Appellant.

Nos. A104772 & 105254. Court of Appeal, First District, Division Two.

August 17, 2004. Alan Goldberg, Law Offices of Alan Goldberg, Beverly Hills, Attorney for Objector and Appellant.

[515] Victor T. Schaub, Law Offices of Victor T. Schaub, Arcata, Attorney for Plaintiff and Respondent.

HAERLE, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Appellant, Julia Muessig, and respondent, Michael Muessig, are the Estate of Regli's only remaining potential beneficiaries. They have filed a motion seeking a "stipulated partial reversal" of several probate court orders. Because this request does not meet either the statutory guidelines set out in Code of Civil Procedure, section 128, subdivision (a)(8),[1] or rule 8 of this court's local rules, the motion is denied.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 29, 2003, the probate court issued an order settling the final account of David Hitchcock, the estate's administrator, and ordered the estate's final distribution. At the same time, the court also rejected objections filed by appellant and respondent, both of whom contended that there were discrepancies in various accountings filed by Hitchcock. In two separate orders, the court ruled that these objections were time-barred, because appellant and respondent had both received notice of the matters to which they were now objecting. These orders are the subject of the appeals in A104772 and A105254.

III. DISCUSSION

David Hitchcock, whose activities both appellant and respondent unsuccessfully challenged below, was removed as the estate's administrator on March 18, 2004. Respondent became the estate's administrator. Respondent and appellant, as we have earlier noted, are the estate's remaining two beneficiaries. Respondent and appellant now seek this court's approval of a stipulated reversal of those portions of the trial court's orders finding that their earlier objections to Hitchcock's accountings were untimely and approving the final reports of the administrator and ordering the administration of the estate concluded. We decline to do so.