Estate of Williams CA1/1

Filed 10/30/14 Estate of Williams CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

Estate of ROOSEVELT WILLIAMS, Deceased.

OLEVIA STEWART-WILLIAMS, as Administrator, etc., A138724 Petitioner and Appellant, v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RP10533844) DIONNE WILLIAMS et al, Objector and Respondent.

Roosevelt Williams acquired a San Francisco taxi medallion in 1978 and had a long ensuing career as a taxi driver. He married Olevia1 in 1992, and he died intestate in April 2010. Roosevelt had three children from a prior marriage, including Dionne.2 Shortly before he died, Roosevelt surrendered his taxi medallion, and it was placed on a list to be sold under a program allowing for such sales. The sale occurred after Roosevelt’s death. The issue in this case is how the proceeds from the sale are to be distributed. The probate court determined that they are separate marital property and are to be shared

1 We refer to the involved parties by their first names because they share the same last name. 2 The other children are Billy Williams and Natalie Carter. Dionne alone has filed a brief on appeal.

1

among the children and Olevia. On appeal, Olevia contends that the proceeds are community property to which she is solely entitled. We agree with her and therefore reverse. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 1978, Roosevelt was issued a taxi medallion authorizing him to operate a taxi in San Francisco.3 Shortly before he died, Roosevelt surrendered his medallion under the Taxi Medallion Sales Pilot Program of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority (SFMTA) that allowed medallion holders to surrender their medallions if they were disabled or would be over 70 years of age as of December 31, 2010. Under that program, surrendered medallions were placed on a waiting list and sold to the next qualified buyer. When Roosevelt’s medallion sold, the sale netted about $250,000, although $50,000 was used to pay medallion-transfer expenses and a mandatory taxi-fund fee. The balance went to Roosevelt’s estate. Dionne objected to Olevia’s petition for a final distribution of Roosevelt’s estate. She claimed that the proceeds from the medallion’s sale should be characterized as separate marital property since the medallion was acquired by Roosevelt long before his marriage to Olevia. The probate court agreed with Dionne. DISCUSSION I. The Standard of Review. The factual findings that underpin the characterization of property as either community or separate are reviewed for substantial evidence. (In re Marriage of Rossin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 725, 734 (Rossin).) But “[i]nasmuch as the basic ‘inquiry requires a critical consideration, in a factual context, of legal principles and their underlying values,’ the determination in question amounts to the resolution of a mixed question of law and fact that is predominantly one of law. [Citation.] As such, it is examined de novo.” (In re Marriage of Lehman (1998) 18 Cal.4th 169, 184 (Lehman).)