Graham v. Graham CA2/2

Filed 12/31/14 Graham v. Graham CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

MICHELLE M. GRAHAM, B253737

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC497866) v.

MICHAEL NEWT GRAHAM et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Deirdre Hill, Judge. Affirmed.

Michelle M. Graham, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Victoria Silver for Defendant and Respondent Michael Newt Graham; Yee & Belilove, Steven R. Yee, Steve R. Belilove and Kevin H. Sun, for Defendants and Respondents Faith Ford and Faith Law Group.

******

Can a plaintiff meet her burden to establish a probability of prevailing on a malicious prosecution claim against her stepson and his attorney for the purpose of opposing motions to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the “anti- SLAPP statute,”1 where the evidence shows the defendants had probable cause to challenge the plaintiff’s authority over her deceased husband’s estate and did not act with malice? We hold she cannot, and therefore affirm the order granting the motions to strike. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Michelle M. Graham (plaintiff) was married to Michael O. Graham (decedent) when he died. Soon thereafter, plaintiff’s stepson, defendant Michael Newt Graham (Graham), filed two lawsuits while represented by defendants Faith Ford and her law firm, defendant Faith Law Group (collectively, Attorneys). (They filed a third lawsuit in federal court involving the proceeds of decedent’s life insurance policy, but Graham prevailed in that lawsuit.) I. Will contest Graham initially believed that decedent died without a will, and retained Attorneys to petition the probate court for letters of administration. Plaintiff responded by sending Graham and Attorneys (collectively, defendants) a copy of what purported to be decedent’s will, but without any witness signatures. A few weeks later, plaintiff sent the witness signature page for the will, including a signature for George Fletcher (Fletcher). However, when asked about its authenticity, Fletcher indicated that it was “not [his] signature” and that he “did not sign as a witness to [decedent’s] Will.” Fletcher maintained his position even after examining the original will. Plaintiff also sent defendants what purported to be decedent’s living trust, along with several quitclaim deeds ceding property to plaintiff just days before his death but not