Court Opinion

ID: 9556575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-17 18:03:45.884009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:09:57.394626
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/17/23 Estate of Singh CA2/6
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

Estate of SUKHJINDER                                        2d Civil No. B325245
SINGH, Deceased.                                         (Super. Ct. No. 19PR-0348)
                                                          (San Luis Obispo County)

IKE M. IQBAL, as Executor,
etc.,

     Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

NIKI HAMIDI,

     Contestant and Appellant.

     Niki Hamidi appeals from an order admitting Sukhjinder
Singh’s will to probate and the accompanying order appointing
Ike M. Iqbal executor of Singh’s will. Hamidi contends the orders
should be vacated because: (1) Singh’s will was illegal, invalid,
and voidable, and (2) Iqbal was disqualified from being appointed
executor.1 We affirm.
             FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       Singh died in September 2016. His will bequeathed his
entire estate to the Sukhjinder “Willie” Singh Living Trust. The
will, dated December 1, 2008, nominated Iqbal as executor. It
disinherited both Hamidi (his ex-wife) and their daughter.
       Iqbal petitioned to probate Singh’s will in December 2020.
Hamidi filed a competing petition contesting Singh’s will and
requesting that she be appointed to administer his estate.
Hamidi also objected to Iqbal’s petition, alleging the will he
sought to probate was not Singh’s true will and that she and her
daughter were the “true beneficiaries” of Singh’s estate. She
later filed additional objections, claiming that Singh’s will was
invalid because Singh lacked testamentary capacity, was subject
to undue influence, and executed the documents when a child
support modification proceeding was pending in another county.

      1 Hamidi also urges us to vacate the trial court’s order
requiring her to pay $6,500 in discovery sanctions to Iqbal. We
upheld the sanctions order in an opinion filed last year (Estate of
Singh (Nov. 17, 2022, B319677) [2022 WL 16991548 at pp. *2-3]
[nonpub. opn.]), and do not revisit the issue here (see Leider v.
Lewis (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1121, 1127). She raises or develops
several additional issues—i.e., that Singh’s will is invalid under
Probate Code section 15407 and the Uniform Fraudulent
Transfer Act and that her community property rights were never
adjudicated during her 1994 divorce from Singh—for the first
time in her reply brief. We do not consider issues undeveloped
with arguments and citations to the record (Interinsurance
Exchange v. Collins (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1445, 1448) or raised
for the first time on reply (Varjabedian v. City of Madera (1977)
20 Cal.3d 285, 295, fn. 11).

                                 2
She said she could not provide the trial court with Singh’s true
will because the attorney who drafted it refused to give her a true
and correct copy of it.
       The trial court scheduled a hearing on Hamidi’s petition for
November 2022. Hamidi did not attend that hearing, however,
and the court dismissed her petition.
       Hamidi also did not attend a subsequent status conference
regarding the trial on Iqbal’s petition, which was set for
December 5 and then continued to December 7. Iqbal gave
Hamidi notice of the December 7 trial date, but she “consciously
elected” not to attend.
       Attorney John Christopher Toews testified at the December
7 trial. He said that Singh asked him to prepare a new will and
trust, that he prepared those documents, and that Singh
executed them. Toews said that he had not previously crafted
documents for Singh that benefited Hamidi or his daughter; the
“primary reason” Singh executed his new estate plan was to
disinherit those two. Toews said he had “no doubt” that Singh
was competent when he executed the new estate plan. He also
had no reason to believe that Singh had been unduly influenced
by his family or Iqbal when crafting it.
       At the conclusion of trial, the trial court found that Singh
had capacity when he signed his will and trust and that he had
not been subject to undue influence. There was no evidence the
will or trust was illegal or invalid. The court admitted Singh’s
will to probate, and appointed Iqbal executor.
                            DISCUSSION
                        Singh’s will and trust
       Hamidi contends Singh’s will and trust were illegal and
invalid under Probate Code section 15203 and/or voidable under

                                3
Civil Code section 3439.04. We disagree.
        “A trust may be created for any purpose that is not illegal
or against public policy.” (Prob. Code, § 15203.) Hamidi claims
Singh’s will and trust are illegal and invalid under this provision
because he executed them to hide assets and perpetuate fraud.
But the only evidence she cites in support of this claim are the
cover pages to her objections to Iqbal’s petition to probate Singh’s
will. These do not demonstrate that Singh hid assets or
committed fraud. Hamidi has thus failed to show that his will
and trust are illegal and invalid under Probate Code section
15203. (Mueller v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th
809, 816, fn. 5 (Mueller) [arguments not supported by the record
can be rejected].)
        “A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is
voidable . . . if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the
obligation . . . [¶] [w]ith actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud
any creditor of the debtor.” (Civ. Code, § 3439.04, subd. (a)(1).)
Hamidi claims Singh’s will and trust are voidable under this
provision because he attempted to hide assets when he had
Toews draft his 2008 will and trust. Again, however, the only
evidence she cites in support of this claim are cover pages to her
objections to Iqbal’s petition to probate Singh’s will, a
continuance order, and her objections to findings the trial court
made during the proceedings below. These pleadings do not
demonstrate that Singh tried to hide his assets. Hamidi has thus
failed to show that his will and trust are voidable under Civil
Code section 3439.04. (Mueller, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 816,
fn. 5.)

                                  4
                   Iqbal’s appointment as executor
        Hamidi also contends the trial court’s order appointing
Iqbal executor of Singh’s estate must be vacated because he
waived his right to such an appointment under Probate Code
section 8001 and/or because he breached his fiduciary duty by
allegedly helping Singh commit fraud. We again disagree.
        “Unless good cause for delay is shown, if a person named in
a will as executor fails to petition the court for administration of
the estate within 30 days after the person has knowledge of the
death of the decedent and that the person is named as executor,
the person may be held to have waived the right to appointment
as personal representative.” (Prob. Code, § 8001.) Hamidi levels
a series of accusations at Iqbal, but does not explain, with cogent
legal analysis, how this section of the Probate Code disqualifies
him from being appointed executor of Singh’s will. Conclusory
arguments not supported by legal analysis are to be disregarded.
(City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 286-
287.) Additionally, the only page of the record Hamidi cites in
support of her arguments does not delineate how Iqbal missed
the 30-day window or failed to demonstrate good cause for doing
so. She has thus failed to show that Probate Code section 8001’s
waiver provisions apply here. (Mueller, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th
at p. 816, fn. 5.)
        Finally, Hamidi claims Iqbal is disqualified from being
executor of Singh’s estate because he allegedly committed a series
of fraudulent acts. The evidence cited does not support this
claim. We reject it. (Mueller, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 816,
fn. 5.)

                                 5
                           DISPOSITION
      The trial court’s order admitting Sukhjinder Singh’s will to
probate and the accompanying order appointing Ike M. Iqbal
executor of Singh’s will, both entered December 7, 2022, are
affirmed. Iqbal shall recover his costs on appeal.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                    BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.

             YEGAN, J.

                                6
                     Tana L. Coates, Judge

           Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

                ______________________________

      Niki Hamidi, in pro. per., for Contestant and Appellant.
      Andre, Morris & Buttery and James C. Buttery for
Petitioner and Respondent.