Estate of Battle CA2/8

Filed 2/1/16 Estate of Battle CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

Estate of ATLENA BATTLE, Deceased. B261329

(Los Angeles County DOROTHY WILLIAMS et al., Super. Ct. No. BP049505)

Petitioners and Respondents,

v.

STANLEY F. ALLEN,

Objector and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Mitchell L. Beckloff, Judge. Affirmed.

Stanley F. Allen, in pro. per., for Objector and Appellant.

No appearance for Petitioners and Respondents.

**********

This appeal is another in a long series of appellate challenges raised by appellant Stanley F. Allen, in propria persona, from the same underlying probate matter (case No. BP049505), as well as from multiple unsuccessful civil actions appellant has pursued against a myriad of defendants regarding his claimed interest in a parcel of real property located at 2949 South Raymond Avenue in the city of Los Angeles (hereafter the Raymond Avenue property). By way of this appeal, appellant continues to attempt to relitigate his allegations of fraud and denial of a joint tenant interest in the Raymond Avenue property, stemming from a partition action filed in 2003 by his cousin Ingrid Allen (case No. BC298286, the “partition action”). In this present appeal, appellant has once again presented a minimal and inadequate record. The record consists only of a small volume of a clerk’s transcript containing a select number of documents from the underlying probate matter (case No. BP049505), and one volume of a reporter’s transcript containing an eight-page transcript of a July 2004 hearing in the partition action. We endeavor to cull the facts germane to our discussion from these limited sources, as well as from our review of the filed opinions in the related appeals titled Allen v. Reifman (Mar. 1, 2010; B212850) [nonpub.], and Allen v. Allen (Jan. 30, 2014; B239310) [nonpub.]. On our own motion, we take judicial notice of those decisions. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d)(1); Deschene v. Pinole Point Steel Co. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 33, 37, fn. 2.) Appellant was not a named party to the partition action or identified as a holder of any interest in the Raymond Avenue property. On April 4, 2005, the trial court confirmed the partition of the Raymond Avenue property and approved the final report of the referee. (Allen v. Reifman, supra, B212850, p. 2.) The proceeds of the sale were apparently distributed to the identified owners, without any participation by defendant. Despite the fact he was not a party to the action, appellant appealed the final judgment in the partition action. His appeal was dismissed on the court’s own motion because appellant “ ‘having not been a party to the cause of action in the trial court and not being an interested person as defined by Probate Code sec[tion] 48 lacks standing to