Washington v. Washington CA1/4

Filed 5/30/23 Washington v. Washington CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

LISA WASHINGTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, A166079 v. JOSEPH LEE WASHINGTON, (Alameda County Super. Defendant and Respondent. Ct. No. RP20083718)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Lisa Washington (Washington) appeals from a trial court order confirming the probate sale of real property previously owned by her deceased aunt.2 Washington objected to the sale in the trial court, believing the administrator of her aunt’s estate—her brother, Joseph

We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to the 1

California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. Washington ostensibly appeals from trial court orders entered 2

May 26, June 17, and July 1, 2022. The May 26 order is not appealable. We have considered the content of the June 17, 2022 hearing as part of our review of the July 1, 2022 order, which is appealable. (Prob. Code § 1300, subd. (a).) Otherwise, we deem the appeal to be from the July 1 order. (See Estate of Barthelmess (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 728, 731, fn. 1.)

Lee Washington—along with the estate’s attorney, Mathew Alden, had “mishandled” the estate, including the sale of the property. After the first two attempts to sell the property failed, Alden filed an amended Report of Sale and Petition for Order Confirming Sale of Real Property on May 24, 2022. On May 31, 2022, he provided notice of the hearing on the sale to the new prospective buyer, to a creditor of the estate, and to 15 heirs of the decedent, including Washington. In written objections to the sale, Washington explained that she believed the real property should sell for more than the offer price, that it had not been maintained properly, and that it had appraised for significantly more in 2019 and 2021.3 At the hearing, Washington reiterated that the property had not been properly maintained and that the proposed purchase price was below recent appraisal values. She argued that additional cosmetic work should have been completed before the property was marketed. That work, in her view, would have increased the property’s value and the inheritance for all the beneficiaries of her aunt’s estate. The court heard responsive argument from Alden and two realtors who had been engaged to sell the property. They explained that the property was already in foreclosure; that it was in all involved parties’ interests to get the best possible price for the house; that the house’s condition meant that investing in minor cosmetic changes would not lead to a positive return; that they had performed their due diligence in marketing the property; and, with 40 prospective buyers having viewed the home, that “the market ha[d] spoken” as to the