Estate of Singh CA2/6

Filed 8/17/23 Estate of Singh CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

Estate of SUKHJINDER 2d Civil No. B325245 SINGH, Deceased. (Super. Ct. No. 19PR-0348) (San Luis Obispo County)

IKE M. IQBAL, as Executor, etc.,

Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

NIKI HAMIDI,

Contestant and Appellant.

Niki Hamidi appeals from an order admitting Sukhjinder Singh’s will to probate and the accompanying order appointing Ike M. Iqbal executor of Singh’s will. Hamidi contends the orders should be vacated because: (1) Singh’s will was illegal, invalid,

and voidable, and (2) Iqbal was disqualified from being appointed executor.1 We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Singh died in September 2016. His will bequeathed his entire estate to the Sukhjinder “Willie” Singh Living Trust. The will, dated December 1, 2008, nominated Iqbal as executor. It disinherited both Hamidi (his ex-wife) and their daughter. Iqbal petitioned to probate Singh’s will in December 2020. Hamidi filed a competing petition contesting Singh’s will and requesting that she be appointed to administer his estate. Hamidi also objected to Iqbal’s petition, alleging the will he sought to probate was not Singh’s true will and that she and her daughter were the “true beneficiaries” of Singh’s estate. She later filed additional objections, claiming that Singh’s will was invalid because Singh lacked testamentary capacity, was subject to undue influence, and executed the documents when a child support modification proceeding was pending in another county.

1 Hamidi also urges us to vacate the trial court’s order requiring her to pay $6,500 in discovery sanctions to Iqbal. We upheld the sanctions order in an opinion filed last year (Estate of Singh (Nov. 17, 2022, B319677) [2022 WL 16991548 at pp.