Opinion ID: 2331585
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 38

Heading: Discussion of Valentine's Appeal of the Rosen Compensation Order

Text: The trial court's findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of March 23, 1999, stated that Valentine has forfeited her bequest under the [July 31] will. [21] The trial court so ordered because appellant Valentine's attempted contest of the July 31 will in Elliott v. Valentine stripped her of her status as legatee by operation of the no-contest clause in the July 31 will. [22] Since she is no longer a legatee, appellant Valentine is no longer an interested person under the probate code, [23] and therefore cannot possibly be aggrieved by any decision of the trial court that does not relate directly to her. Only a party aggrieved by an order or judgment may appeal as of right to this court. D.C.Code ง 11-721(b) (2001). Valentine has no standing to appeal any of the trial court's decisions made after October 20, 1999, which do not concern her directly. Therefore, we need not consider the merits of her appeal from the May 15, 2000, order on the issue of appellant Rosen's compensation.