Estate of Manwill CA1/1

Filed 6/27/13 Estate of Manwill CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

Estate of ESTELLE ELSA MANWILL, Deceased.

DAVID G. MANWILL, Petitioner and Appellant, v. A135783 & A136311 MARK M. MANWILL, (Contra Costa County Objector and Respondent. Super. Ct. No. P11-00433)

Petitioner David G. Manwill died after a notice of appeal was filed in this estate proceeding. Another notice of appeal was filed after his death. The consolidated appeals have been prosecuted by his son, David J. Manwill, who incorrectly asserts that he has the authority to represent his deceased father in a judicial proceeding under an alleged power of attorney. Because David J. does not have standing to pursue these appeals, we order the appeals dismissed. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 23, 2011, decedent Estelle Elsa Manwill executed a holographic will leaving her estate to her five living children. She died two days later. The estate primarily consists of real property in Contra Costa County and in South Lake Tahoe, with a combined value of $1,238,848. The will was witnessed by nine witnesses, including David G., who was one of decedent’s sons, as well as his son David J. The will makes

outright gifts of real property to decedent’s living children. The will also provides: “I do not want any of my property sold out side [sic] of my family for a minimum of 20 years.” The will does not nominate or appoint an executor. On April 13, 2011, David G. filed a petition for probate of his mother’s will. He initially sought to be appointed as administrator of the estate, but several of his siblings objected. Respondent Mark Manwill, David G.’s brother, also filed a petition to administer the estate. Other family members objected to both brothers’ petitions. On June 28, 2011, the probate court appointed a private professional fiduciary, Michael Gardner, as special administrator. On July 11, 2011, letters of administration were issued. A bond was filed in the sum of $160,000. On December 9, 2011, respondent filed a petition seeking, in part, orders directing the partition and sale of certain real properties under Probate Code section 11950 et seq. He argued that the language in the will stating decedent’s desire not to sell estate real property outside the family for 20 years was precatory and nonbinding. A portion of the petition that sought relief under Probate Code section 850, and which entailed the potential of a jury trial, was subsequently dismissed by respondent.1 On January 31, 2012, David G.’s attorney filed papers stating that his client had been hospitalized and was not able to discuss legal matters due to his illness. On March 2, 2012, Gardner filed a report indicating that administration of the estate had become difficult due to the competing claims of family members. The report includes various recommendations regarding management of the real properties. Also on March 2, 2012, David J. and David G. filed a self-styled “Petition for Redress,” alleging that the probate proceedings “were wrongly initiated, involuntarily under the fraudulent guise of the probate court being a ‘county clerk of record substitute’