Childress v. Barnes CA1/1

Filed 12/15/20 Childress v. Barnes CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ARMALINE CHILDRESS, Plaintiff, A159217 v. TURELL BARNES, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG10552492) Defendant, LATONYA R. FINLEY, Third Party Claimant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 According to appellant’s notice of appeal she is appealing from an order denying a “Motion for Disbursement of Funds.” The best we are able to make out from appellant’s two-page opening brief (no respondent’s brief was filed) is that a property was sold and appellant claimed entitlement to some or all of the proceeds. Appellant’s brief has three headings. The first, “Questions Presented,” precedes six generic questions, all of which pertain to conduct by a referee. For example, “Can a court appointed referee go beyond the scope of his

This appeal is appropriately resolved by memorandum opinion in 1

accordance with California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.

1

fiduciary duties without court approval?” “Is a referee entitled to fees that exceeds [sic] the statutory laws?” (Boldface & capitalization omitted.) The second heading, “Introduction,” is followed by four paragraphs of assertions ranging from an accusation that one “Eugene [Schneider] impaired the interest[ed] party’s ability to challenge or object [to] any court filing that was beneficial to the interest[ed] parties in whole,” to an assertion that “[w]henever a law deprives the owner of the beneficial use and free enjoyment of his/her property . . . without legal process or compensation, it deprives him/her of his/her property within the meaning of the constitution.” (Boldface & capitalization omitted.) The third heading, “Statement of Issues,” precedes a single paragraph of disparate assertions, including that the “court acted in excess of jurisdiction,” the court failed to dismiss the action “for not being brought to trial within five years after commencement,” the “real property was sold in the name of the referee (Phillip Campbell) and not the name of the owner(s) of record,” and the “judgment or order obtained, contained fraud, conspiracy and/or misrepresentation in the petition or account or in the judgment as to the material fact, Probate Code, § 240.” (Boldface & capitalization omitted.) The opening brief does not identify or describe the order being appealed. The order is, however, attached to appellant’s notice of appeal. But other than stating “Third Party Claimant LaTonya Finley’s Motion for Disbursement of Funds is DENIED,” the order says nothing about the substance of the motion or the reasons for the court’s ruling. The opening brief also does not describe or provide record citations to the relevant court filings and documents pertaining to the challenged order. Nor does it provide any cogent analysis, supported by relevant authorities, as to why the challenged order is incorrect.