California Court of Appeal Sep 2, 2022 No. E077051Unpublished
Filed 9/2/22 Shea v. Haacke CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
ROBIN SHEA, as Successor Trustee, etc., E077051 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. MCP1700472) v. OPINION RODNEY G. HAACKE,
Defendant and Appellant;
DESRIE PFISTER,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Mark Ashton Cope,
Judge. Affirmed.
The Law Office of Evan D. Williams and Evan D. Williams for Defendant and
Appellant.
Carmel & Naccasha and Victor J. Herrera for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. Robin J. Shea (Trustee), Successor Trustee of The Haacke Family Trust (the
Trust), filed a second accounting and report (the accounting) in the probate court.
Rodney Haacke (Beneficiary), a beneficiary of the Trust, objected to the accounting.
The probate court overruled Beneficiary’s objection and approved the accounting.
Beneficiary contends the probate court erred by depriving him of discovery and an
evidentiary hearing prior to ruling on the objection. We affirm the order.
1530.) Beneficiary failed to attend the hearings to present evidence. Beneficiary’s
7
declaration was not admissible evidence on a contested issue. (Estate of Bennett, supra,
163 Cal.App.4th at p. 1309 [Probate Code “section 1022 authorizes the use of
declarations only in an ‘uncontested proceeding’ ”].) Due to the lack of evidence, the
probate court could reasonably overrule the objection. Thus, we conclude the probate
court did not err.
Beneficiary asserts, “To the extent the probate court [overruled the objection] for
[a] lack of evidence, its ruling was premature. Again, no trial date had been set, no
discovery cutoff had been set, and no dispositive motion had been filed.”
“When a petition, report, account, or other matter that requires a hearing is filed
with the court clerk, the clerk shall set the matter for hearing.” (Prob. Code, § 1041.)
“An interested person may appear and make a response or objection in writing at or
before the hearing.” (Prob. Code, § 1043, subd. (a).) “The court shall hear and
determine any matter at issue and any response or objection presented, consider
evidence presented, and make appropriate orders.” (Prob. Code, § 1046.) The Code of
Civil Procedure fills any procedural gaps in the Probate Code. (Prob. Code, § 1000,
subd. (a).)
Beneficiary does not provide any citations to the Probate Code or the Code of
Civil Procedure indicating that a trial setting conference is required. In looking at the
minute orders for the December 11, 2020, hearing; the January 7, 2021, hearing; and the
March 9, 2021, hearing, they were all on calendar as hearings on the accounting.
At the start of the January 7 hearing, the probate court said, “So this is on
calendar today for a hearing on [Trustee’s] accounting petition.” Beneficiary requested
8
a continuance. When discussing the date for the continued hearing, Trustee’s attorney
said, “I’d obviously like this to get approved sooner rather than later, but we will defer
to the Court.” Notably, Trustee’s attorney’s comment did not indicate that the next
hearing would be about procedural matters, rather, he expected it to concern a ruling on
the merits of the accounting.
The probate court said, “[Beneficiary], you know, your objection says, ‘Well, all
this money is being spent on attorneys,’ and you object to that, but I’m having trouble
working up any sympathy on that. This is—all those attorney fees are being expended
based on your and your wife’s filing of repeated lawsuits. [¶] March 9th, 8:30 in the
morning. We’ll talk to you then.” The probate court’s comment concerned the
substance of Beneficiary’s objection, thereby implying that the March 9 hearing would
involve a ruling on the merits of the objection and the accounting.
At the beginning of the March 9 hearing, the probate court asked Trustee’s
attorney, “[W]hat’s the status?” Trustee’s attorney replied, “I believe that this matter is
ready and ripe for decision.” Counsel then repeated, “So I believe the matter is set for
approval this morning.” Trustee’s attorney’s comments reflect an understanding that
the hearing was set for a ruling on the merits of the accounting and the objection.
Further, when Beneficiary’s attorney moved to set aside the March 9 ruling, she
declared that the ruling should be set aside due to her failure to attend the hearing; she
did not assert that a substantive ruling was unexpected on March 9. In Beneficiary’s
declaration in support of the motion to set aside, he too did not assert that a substantive
9
ruling was unexpected on March 9. Rather, he declared that he “intended to participate
in the hearing on March 9, 2021.”
In sum, Beneficiary has provided no legal authority indicating that a trial setting
conference is required, and the record indicates that the probate court, Trustee’s
attorney, Beneficiary’s attorney, and Beneficiary understood that the hearings were
meant to address the merits of the objection and the accounting. Accordingly, we are
not persuaded that the ruling on the objection was premature.
DISPOSITION
The order approving the second accounting is affirmed. Trustee is awarded her
costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1).)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER Acting P. J.
We concur:
SLOUGH J.
FIELDS J.
10
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The probate court did not err in overruling a beneficiary's objection to a trustee's accounting where the beneficiary failed to appear at scheduled hearings to present evidence and failed to demonstrate that he was denied the opportunity to conduct discovery.
Issues
Did the probate court err by denying the beneficiary the right to conduct discovery?
Did the probate court err by denying the beneficiary an evidentiary hearing?
Was the probate court's ruling on the accounting objection premature?
Disposition. affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Because Beneficiary had filed an objection, “the normal rules of discovery for civil actions appl[ied]” (Forthmann, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 987), i.e., Beneficiary did not need a court order to conduct discovery.”
“Had Beneficiary appeared ready to proceed on his objection at any of the three hearings, then he could have presented evidence.”