Estate of Utan CA1/4

Filed 1/28/21 Estate of Utan CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

Estate of SRI T. UTAN, Deceased.

SRI MURNIATI UTAN et al., Petitioners and Respondents, A158276 v. (San Mateo County THIAT JOE LIANG, Super. Ct. No. PRO126163) Objector and Appellant.

Thiat Joe Liang appeals from the probate court’s denial of his motion under section 473, subdivision (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure1 to set aside its order imposing terminating sanctions. We conclude the probate court’s order is not appealable, so we dismiss the appeal.

I. BACKGROUND Liang’s wife, Sri T. Utan, passed away in March 2015. A dispute then arose between Liang and Sri T. Utan’s siblings and other family members (collectively, the Utans) regarding a house in Burlingame. Sri T. Utan allegedly owned the house as her separate property with one sister on behalf of the Utans as a group. In October 2015, Liang filed an ex parte spousal

1 Undesignated statutory citations are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

1

property petition alleging that a portion of the property had been community property and asking for it to be transferred to him. Liang did not give notice of his petition to the Utans. The probate court granted the petition the same day it was filed. Liang recorded the order and then transferred title to a portion of the house into his revocable trust. The probate court later agreed with the Utans that the order had been obtained by extrinsic and intrinsic fraud, and it granted their request to set the order aside. The Utans objected to Liang’s petition and filed a petition of their own under Probate Code section 850 to compel Liang to transfer the house to them. The Utans’ petition also asked for damages and other relief for alleged fraud, conversion, and other claims. Over the course of the next three years of litigation, the Utans were never able to depose Liang despite multiple attempts and efforts. In early March 2019, the Utans moved for terminating or other sanctions based on Liang’s alleged evasion of his deposition and other discovery. Around the same time, Liang moved to dismiss the action with prejudice or, in the alternative, to continue all of the deadlines for the case based on his health problems and lack of legal representation. The probate court dismissed Liang’s spousal property petition with prejudice. The probate court also granted the Utans’ motion for terminating sanctions and denied their request for monetary sanctions. Due to a misunderstanding, the probate court further ruled that the Utans’ petition had been withdrawn. The probate court subsequently granted the Utans’ request for reconsideration and reinstated their petition. The court instructed the Utans that they needed to file a petition for default in order to prove up the relief they requested in their petition, including their requests for damages and to determine the ownership of the Burlingame house.