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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

v.

JOSEPH LEE WASHINGTON,

Defendant and Respondent.

 A166079

 (Alameda County Super.

 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 

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

California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.

2 Washington ostensibly appeals from trial court orders entered 

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.)
2

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

3 Washington also alleged self-dealing by the realtors selling the 

home, which the record does not support. Washington made additional

allegations not relevant to this appeal. We do not address them.
3

home’s value. The court largely adopted Alden’s and the realtors’

reasoning and affirmed the sale.

The trial court entered its order confirming the sale of the 

property on July 1, 2022.

4

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Washington primarily contends that her brother and 

Alden committed fraud and embezzlement in conjunction with the sale 

of the real property. She argues that court documents related to the 

administration of the estate were not sent to certain beneficiaries’ 

correct addresses. Washington has not supported her contention with 

citations to the record, although from our own review it appears that 

Alden sent certain notices to incorrect addresses, but also that he later 

identified and used the correct addresses. In any event, Washington 

has not identified anything in the record that indicates that fraud was 

committed in connection with the beneficiary addresses or that any 

alleged fraud impacted the sale of the property.

Washington is also concerned that the contract of sale bears the 

name of her deceased father—Joseph Washington—rather than that of 

her brother—Joseph Lee Washington—and that certain other court 

documents also list “Joseph Washington” or “James Washington” 

rather than “Joseph Lee Washington.” She surmises that there may

also have been some wrongdoing related to life insurance policies in the 

name of Joseph—not Joseph Lee—Washington. She does not, however, 

4 Washington attached several documents to her reply brief on 

appeal. Many if not all of these documents are already in the record. 

In any event, we need not augment the record or take judicial notice of 

the documents to resolve this appeal. (See Cal. Rules of Court, 

rule 8.155(a); Evid. Code § 452.)
4

indicate how these alleged inconsistencies amount to fraud or 

embezzlement, nor how her concerns regarding these clerical errors 

overcome the presumption of correctness we afford the trial court’s 

determinations. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609.) 

Finally, Washington asserts that the sale of the property should 

be invalidated because her brother and Alden obstructed justice and 

engaged in an elaborate conspiracy and racketeering scheme. These 

allegations are not supported by record evidence and were not raised in 

Washington’s objections to the sale or at the hearing on the sale. We

therefore do not address them. (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293, 

superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re S.J. (2008) 

167 Cal.App.4th 953, 962; Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan 

(2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657, 684.)

We conclude that the trial court’s ruling satisfied the

requirement that the court “examine . . . the necessity for the sale or 

the advantage to the estate and the benefit to the interested persons in 

making the sale.” (Prob. Code § 10310, subd. (a).) The record shows 

that the trial court carefully considered Washington’s arguments and 

that substantial evidence supports the court’s determination that 

selling the property was in the best interest of the estate and would 

benefit the interested parties. (Ibid.) Washington has not 

demonstrated error in the trial court’s ruling. (Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. 
5

AMZ Ins. Services, Inc. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 401, 415.)

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s order is affirmed. The parties shall bear their 

own costs on appeal.

GOLDMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

STREETER, Acting P. J.

FINEMAN, J. *

* Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, 

assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the 

California Constitution.