Estate of Manwill CA1/1

Filed 4/13/15 Estate of Manwill CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 DAVID GARY MANWILL, Deceased.

DAVID J. MANWILL, Petitioner and Appellant, A142058 v. (Contra Costa County DAVID SHANE MANWILL et al., Super. Ct. No. MSP1200808) Objectors and Respondents.

Petitioner David J. Manwill appeals from the probate court’s order denying his petition to be named executor of the estate of his father, decedent David Gary Manwill, and instead naming his brother, respondent Douglas Manwill, as executor. He asserts the court’s order is contrary to the law and facts presented in the case. He also claims he was denied the right to a jury trial. We affirm.1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Decedent died testate on July 5, 2012, with issue. Paragraph 2.1 of decedent’s will names two of his sons, petitioner and respondent Douglas, as co-executors.

1 Petitioner has filed a document entitled Declaration In Objection with this court. We will treat the document as a motion to disqualify three members of this court for cause. The motion is denied. (See Kaufman v. Court of Appeal (1982) 31 Cal.3d 933, 939-940; see also Lebbos v. State Bar (1991) 53 Cal.3d 37, 41, fn.1.)

On November 1, 2013, Douglas filed a petition for probate of decedent’s will and requesting to be appointed sole executor. On December 10, 2013, petitioner filed an objection to Douglas’s petition and filed his own petition to be named as executor. On January 24, 2014, another one of decedent’s sons, David Shane Manwill, filed objections to the appointment of petitioner as executor or as a co-fiduciary of decedent’s estate. He raised multiple grounds as to why petitioner should not be appointed, including that he had a disqualifying conflict of interest because he persisted in asserting that property in the estate of decedent’s late mother (Estelle Manwill) is subject to a purported “family holding company,” and therefore is not subject to the probate process.2 On May 1, 2014, the probate court filed its Order Addressing Petition for Appointment of Administrator of Estate, denying petitioner’s petition to serve as a personal representative of decedent’s estate and appointing Douglas as executor. Petitioner filed timely a notice of appeal from the May 1, 2014 order.3 DISCUSSION On appeal, petitioner—who appears in pro. per.—raises no coherent arguments. A civil litigant must abide by the same procedures—including appellate procedures— whether or not she chooses to employ an attorney. (Bistawros v. Greenberg (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 189, 193.) Petitioner, as the party who brought this appeal, bears the burden to show reversible error. (Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115-1116.) His opening brief is incomprehensible, as it fails to provide a coherent factual and procedural background and fails to provide coherent legal