Cash v. Federizo CA2/3

California Court of Appeal Jun 24, 2022 No. B306935Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the probate court's order approving the final account and distribution of the trust estate, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review prior final orders and that the appellant forfeited any substantive challenges to the appealed order.

Issues

Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review orders not identified in the notice of appeal.
Whether the appellant forfeited arguments regarding the probate court's January 2020 order by failing to raise substantive challenges.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We have no jurisdiction over an order not mentioned in the notice of appeal.”

“Because Cash’s arguments focus only on orders that fall outside the scope of the January 2020 minute order, we lack jurisdiction to consider them.”

“Cash does not otherwise make any substantive challenges to the probate court’s January 2020 minute order and has therefore forfeited any argument she might have made with respect to that order.”

Filed 6/24/22 Cash v. Federizo CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

CONSTANCE JONES CASH, B306935

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BP154602) v.

AILEEN FEDERIZO, as Trustee, etc.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael C. Small, Judge. Affirmed. Constance Jones Cash, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Offices of Eric R. Yamamoto, Eric R. Yamamoto; Law Offices of Andrea Lynn Rice and Andrea Lynn Rice for Defendant and Respondent. ——————————

Constance Jones Cash, Lara Bass, and Cornell Jones were beneficiaries of their mother Cleo Jones’s trust, The Cleo Jones Family Trust, Dated May 8, 2012.1 Cash appeals in propria persona from the probate court’s order approving a final account, trustee and attorney fees, and distribution of the remaining trust estate to Cash, Bass, and Cornell. We affirm the order. BACKGROUND We only recite those facts necessary to resolve the issues on appeal, doing so in the light most favorable to the probate court’s order. (Estate of Young (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 62, 76.) Cleo created the trust and transferred her principal residence, miscellaneous real and personal property to it. She named herself as trustee, however, in the event she became incapacitated, Cash and Cornell were to become successor trustees, or, alternatively, Cash and Bass. After Cleo became incapacitated, Bass was appointed conservator, and petitioned the probate court for an order appointing herself as successor trustee, or, alternatively, her and Cornell as successor cotrustees. In March 2015, the probate court granted Bass’s petition and appointed her and Cornell as successor cotrustees.2 The probate court granted the petition over Cash’s objections. It found that Cash was unable to work with either sibling as a successor cotrustee negatively impacting her ability to administer the trust for Cleo’s benefit. Bass and Cornell acted in that capacity until December 2016 when the

Cash v. Federizo CA2/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

CONSTANCE JONES CASH, B306935

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

EDMON, P. J.

EGERTON, J.

AI Brief