Filed 2/1/16 E state of Battle CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

Estate of ATLENA BATTLE, Deceased. B261329

DORO T H Y WILLIAMS et al.,
Petitioners and Respondents,

v.

STANLEY F. ALLEN,
Objector and Appellant. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BP049505)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Mitchell L.
Beckloff , Jud ge. Affirmed.

Stanley F. Allen, in pro

. per., for Objector and Appellant.

No appearance for Petitioners and R espondents.

* * * * * * * * * *2

This appeal is another in a long series of appellate challenges raised by appellant Stanley F. Allen, in propria persona , from the same underlying probate matter ( case N o. BP049505) , as well as from multiple unsuccessful civil actions appellant has pursued against a myriad of defendants regarding his claimed interest in a parcel of real property
located at 2 949 South Raymond Avenue in the city of Los Angeles (hereafter the Raymond Avenue property). By way of this appeal, appellant continues to attempt to relitigate his allegations of fraud and denial of a joint tenant interest in the Ray mond Avenue proper ty, stemming from a partition action filed in 2003 by his cousin Ingrid Allen ( case No. BC298286, the “partition action”). In this present appeal, a ppellant has once again presented a minimal and inadequate record. The record consists only of a small v olume of a clerk’s transcript containing a select number of documents from the underlying probate matter ( case No. BP049505), and one volume of a reporter’s transcript containing an eight

- page transcript of a July 2 004 hearing in the partition action. We endeavor to cull the facts germane to our discussion from these limited sources, as well as from our review of the filed opinions in the related a ppeals titled Allen v. Reifman (Mar. 1, 2010; B212850 ) [nonpub.], and Allen v. Allen (Jan. 30, 2014; B239310 ) [nonpub.] . On our own motion,

we take judicial notice of th ose decision s. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d) (1) ; Deschene v. Pinole Point Steel Co . (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 33, 37, fn. 2. ) Appellant was not a named party to the partition action or identifie d as a holder of any interest in the Raymond Avenue property. On April 4, 2005 , the trial court confirm ed the partition of the Raymond Avenue property and approv ed the final report of the referee. (

Allen v. Reifman
, supra , B212850, p. 2.) The proceeds o f the sale were apparently distributed to the identified owners, without any participation by defendant. Despite the fact he was not a party to the action, app ellant appealed the final judgment in the partition action . His appeal was dismissed on the co urt’s own motion because appellant “ ‘having not been a party to the cause of action in the trial court and not being an interested person as defined by Probate Code sec[tion] 48 lacks standing to3

appeal from the judgment of the trial court. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] ” ( Allen v. Reifman
, supra , B212850, p. 3.) Appellant then raised his claim to the Raymond Avenue property in the underlying probate matter ( case No. BP049505) where he was similarly unsuccessful. Letters of administration were originally filed in case No. BP049505 in 1998. One of the properties
included in the probate estate was the Raymond Avenue property. ( Allen v. Allen
, supra , B239310, p. 2 .) “Appellant claimed an interest in the Raymond Avenue property through his grandparents, Le on and Mamie Allen, who had, at one time, owned the property in joint tenancy with Ingrid Allen and William Allen. In the related civil action (case
No BC443476), appellant, also in propria persona, alleged various claims, including
fraud and elder abuse resulting in the forging of deeds that illegally extinguished his interest in the Raymond Avenue property.” ( Ibid .) Appellant’s most recent appeal in case No. B239310 challenged the probate court’s December 20, 2011 final accounting in that action

. In our January 30, 2014 unpublished decision in Allen v. Allen , we affirmed the probate court ’s order

. ( Allen v.
Allen
, supra , B239310, p. 4 .) Following issuance of the remitti tur in case No. B239310 on April 8, 2014, and the denial of appellant’s motion t o recall t he remittitur, appellant filed yet another petition in the underlying probate matter , seeking to reopen the issue of title to the Raymond Avenue property

. On November 13, 2014, appellant filed a “petition to establish death of joint te nants” pur suant to Probate Code section 200. Appellant purported to seek an order establishing the dates of death of 13 separate individuals with alleged dates of death ranging from 1960 through 2006 in order to “recover his beneficial interest” in the Raymond Aven ue property. On December 31, 2014, the probate court denied appellant’s petition “with prejudice.” Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the probate court’s “12/31/2014” order denying his petition.
In violat ion of California Rules of Court, rule 8. 204(a)(2)(B), appellant has failed to explain whether the December 31, 2014 probate order is appealable. “ Generally,4

rulings in probate proceedings are not appealable unless expressly made appealable by

statute. ” ( Estate of Martin (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1 438, 1441

- 1442

. ) “ However, it is well established that a probate order ’ s appealability is determined not from its f orm, but from its legal effect.” ( Estate of Miramontes

- Najera (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 750, 755 .) Appellant’s appeal of the denial of his pe tition appears to be arguably appealable pursuant to Probate Code section 1300, subdivision (k), as akin to an appeal of a n order

on a petition under section 850. While appellant titled his petition as a petition to
establish dates of death under section 200, the gist of his petition was to again make a claim against the probate estate for his alleged joint tenant interest in the Raymond Avenue property. We therefore will address the merits. Nonetheless, appellant’s appeal wholly lacks merit. As a founda tional premise, it
is well established that “ ‘ [a] judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct

. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown . T his is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible
error.’ [Citations.]” ( Denham v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564
, second italics added ; accord, Moreno v. City of King (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 17, 30 [where appellant brought up inadequate record, appellate court presumed trial court had been presented with “a sound basis” for implied finding that appellant had not
incurred certain costs and affirmed trial c ourt’s denial of same].) Further, unless otherwise shown, “it is presumed that the court followed the law.” ( Wilson v. Sunshine Meat & Liquor Co . (1983) 34 Cal.3d 554, 563.) Plaintiff failed to affirmatively show error or any grounds for relief. Plain tiff’s largely un intelligible brief cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 473 and the authority of the trial court to set aside a void judgment or order. There is no citation to relevant portions of the record or legal argument supporting reliance on s ection 473 as a basis for

any form of relief to appellant with respect to the probate court’s order of December 31,
2014. It is the appellant’s duty to present an adequate record and to affirmatively establish reversible error. ( Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 4 1 Cal.3d 564, 574

- 575; 9 Witkin,5

Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal, § 628, p. 704; see also Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.120.) Nothing in appellant’s opening brief, or the limited record presented, provides a legal or factual basis for finding the proba te court committed any error in denying with prejudice appellant’s petition to “establish dates of death.”
DISPOSITION
The order of December 31 , 201 4 , in probate case N o. BP049505 is affirmed.

GRIMES, J.

WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J.

F LIER, J.