Bank of America v. Sloan CA1/4

Filed 11/5/13 Bank of America v. Sloan CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff, A137739 v. SAMUEL H. SLOAN, (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. PTR33273030) Objector and Appellant. SAM WARE, Movant and Respondent.

Appellant Samuel Sloan appeals from an order granting his attorney’s motion to be relieved as counsel. Because the order is not appealable, we dismiss the appeal. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This appeal arises out of a dispute involving a trust established by Kenneth and Rachel Goodall for the benefit of their only son, Michael. In the 1990s, the Goodall parents died, and Bank of America assumed responsibilities as trustee of the trust. In 1999, Michael initiated the instant action in San Francisco and petitioned to have Bank of America removed as trustee. The petition was denied. Michael died in 2010, and the Marin County Superior Court appointed appellant Sloan as the administrator of Michael’s estate.

1

The San Francisco case was inactive for approximately 11 years until 2011 when Bank of America filed two motions: one to confirm the assets of the Goodall Trust and another to determine the trust’s proper beneficiaries. Shortly thereafter, Sloan retained attorney Sam Ware to represent him. The superior court ordered the assets of the Goodall Trust to be distributed to Rachel Goodall’s siblings and a charity, Guide Dogs for the Blind, Inc. After about a year of representing Sloan, Ware filed a motion to be relieved as his counsel in the San Francisco case. Ware’s short, three-line declaration in support of his motion alleged a “personality conflict” that made it “unreasonably difficult” for him to represent Sloan. Sloan filed no opposition. Meanwhile, Bank of America filed a motion for sanctions, which the court continued until after Ware’s motion to be relieved was heard. At the hearing on the motion to withdraw, the court gave Ware an opportunity to elaborate on why he was seeking to withdraw. Ware explained that there was a “fundamental difference” between how he and Sloan approached the case, and that Sloan had twice filed paperwork that contained inappropriate language without his advice or consent. Sloan orally opposed the motion, contending that it was improper for Ware to withdraw to avoid Bank of America’s threat of sanctions. In granting Ware’s motion, the trial court stated that “Mr. Ware has made it clear that there is a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship that requires the Court to allow him to withdraw at this time.” The order was signed and filed two weeks later at the hearing on Bank of America’s motion for sanctions.1 This appeal followed.