Conservatorship of Parks CA4/2 (2023) · DecisionDepot
Conservatorship of Parks CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Dec 26, 2023 No. E078069Unpublished
Filed 12/26/23 Conservatorship of Parks CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
Conservatorship of the Estate of BESSIE RUTH PARKS, Deceased.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN, E078069
Petitioner and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. RIP1501062)
v. OPINION
REGINALD MICKENS,
Objector and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Thomas H. Cahraman,
Judge. Affirmed.
Reginald Mickens, in pro. per., for Objector and Appellant.
Gregg M. Gu, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent.
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant, Reginald Mickens, proceeding in pro. per., appeals a probate court’s
order concerning the estate of his mother, Bessie Parks. Because of the many
deficiencies in Mickens’s opening brief, we affirm.
II. 1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Respondent Public Guardian was appointed the permanent conservator for Parks’s
estate in 2018 before her death in 2020. As the conservator, Public Guardian was
responsible only for managing Parks’s financial affairs and her estate. Mickens objected
to Public Guardian’s appointment as conservator of his mother’s estate and petitioned to
be appointed the conservator.
After Parks died, Public Guardian submitted a proposed final accounting for her
estate. The probate court approved and adopted the accounting, which authorized Public
Guardian to distribute all of the assets in Parks’s estate. The probate court’s order
concluded by ordering the conservatorship of the estate terminated. Mickens timely
appealed.
1 Our recitation of the background of this case is truncated given the problems with Mickens’s opening brief, which we discuss below.
2
III.
DISCUSSION
Mickens challenges the probate court’s order approving the final accounting. His 2 opening brief has several deficiencies that require us affirm the order.
First, the opening brief’s statement of appealability reads in full, “The court
entered an Order that the final accounting was approved and granted to Public Guardian
before Trial. (I CT 143-144.).” This fails to comply with California Rules of Court, rule
8.204(a)(2)(B), which requires an appellant to “[s]tate that the judgment appealed from is
final, or explain why the order appealed from is appealable.” As a result, we exercise our
discretion to disregard Mickens’s entire opening brief. (See Lester v. Lennane (2000) 84
Cal.App.4th 536, 557.)
Public Guardian does not argue the probate court’s order is nonappealable. But
because “the question of appealability goes to our jurisdiction, we are dutybound to
consider it on our own motion.” (Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 398.) The probate
court’s order that Mickens challenges terminated the conservatorship, which technically
moots this appeal. But “[b]ecause a conservatorship is relatively brief (one year) in
comparison with the appellate process,” we conclude we have jurisdiction to consider this
appeal as raising an issue “capable of recurring, yet of evading review because of
2 Mickens notified this court that he would not file a reply brief, and he did not do so. However, after oral argument, Mickens attempted to file additional documents into the record. We rejected the documents and decline to consider them. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.256(d)(1).)
3
mootness.” (Conservatorship of Susan T. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1005, 1011, fn. 5; accord,
Conservatorship of K.P. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 254, 257, fn. 2.)
Another problem with Mickens’s opening brief is that it does not identify the
applicable standard of review or tailor its arguments to that standard. We interpret this as
a concession that Mickens’s appeal lacks merit. (See Ewald v. Nationstar Mortgage,
LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 947, 948; Sonic Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. v. AAE
Systems, Inc. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 456, 465; People v. Foss (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th
113, 126.)
Third, and most importantly, the argument section of Mickens’s opening brief
contains no coherent argument or citations to authority or the record. Instead, it reads in
full: “During the conservatorship the court allowed [Mickens’s sisters] Cleo [P]arks and
Ruqayyak Parks to act as gatekeepers of the adult children of Bessie [P]arks. They went
into her personal credit union account and withdrew money that was not community
property. The court created orders to allow Clio parts [sic] to go into the accounts. Cleo,
Ruqayyah Parks, and the Riverside Public Guardian never failed [sic] a proper
accounting. The Court approved the accounting knowing that account numbers have
been changed, bank account withdrawals, and real estate property that was not accounted
for. Bessie Park’s adult children wanted to take care of their mother, and that was denied
by the court for unknown reasons. [T]he court has threatened the Mickens attorneys on
multiple occasions. The IRS tax returns have not been verified by the Mickens family.”
4
Simply put, Mickens has failed to articulate an intelligible argument supported by
appropriate authority and citations to the record in the argument section of his opening
brief. We therefore need not consider it. (See Wright v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 93
Cal.App.4th 683, 689 [“Generally, asserted grounds for appeal that are unsupported by
any citation to authority and that merely complain of error without presenting a coherent
legal argument are deemed abandoned and unworthy of discussion.”]; 300 DeHaro Street
Investors v. Department of Housing & Community Development (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th
1240, 1257 [appellant forfeited argument “by failing to brief it properly under a separate
heading . . . and . . . failing to provide adequate legal analysis”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.204(a)(1)(B) [each brief must “[s]tate each point under a separate heading or
subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible,
by citation of authority”].)
We recognize Mickens is representing himself without an attorney. But he still
must “‘be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater
consideration than other litigants and attorneys.’” (First American Title Co. v. Mirzaian
(2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 956, 958, fn. 1.) His opening brief violates several rules,
contains no reasoned argument supported by legal authority and the record, and is
essentially unintelligible.
In other words, we can glean no coherent argument from Mickens’s opening brief.
As a reviewing court, “[w]e are not required to examine undeveloped claims or to supply
arguments for the litigants.” (Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41,
5
52.) We therefore deem “all points asserted in this appeal to be forfeited as unsupported
by ‘adequate factual or legal analysis.’” (Singh v. Lipworth (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 813,
817.) As a result, we must affirm the order appealed from without discussing the merits.
(Ewald v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 948.)
Finally, we acknowledge and appreciate Mickens’s vigorous and respectful
argument at oral argument. However, for the reasons explained above, the law requires
us to affirm probate court’s order.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The order appealed from is affirmed. Public Guardian may recover its costs on
appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
RAPHAEL J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the probate court's order approving the final accounting of the estate, holding that the appellant forfeited his claims by failing to provide a coherent legal argument, citations to authority, or citations to the record in his opening brief.
Issues
Whether the appellant's opening brief complied with the California Rules of Court regarding appealability and legal argument.
Whether the appellant's failure to provide coherent legal analysis and citations to the record warrants forfeiture of the appeal.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Because of the many deficiencies in Mickens’s opening brief, we affirm.”
“Simply put, Mickens has failed to articulate an intelligible argument supported by appropriate authority and citations to the record in the argument section of his opening brief.”
“We therefore deem “all points asserted in this appeal to be forfeited as unsupported by ‘adequate factual or legal analysis.’””