Court Opinion

ID: 9377458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-07 20:02:17.778914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:14.238141
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/7/23 Haffner v. Perez CA1/2
                NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

 ROSEMARY HAFFNER,
            Plaintiff and Appellant,
                                                               A163564
 v.
 FERNANDO PEREZ, JR.,                                          (Contra Costa County
 Individually and as Trustee, etc.,                            Super. Ct. No. MSP18-00394)
            Defendant and Respondent.

        Rosemary Haffner seeks to appeal from a probate court order denying
her motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), to
vacate a judgment. Because the challenged order is not appealable, we
dismiss the appeal.
                  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
        In 2018, Haffner filed a petition in the probate court seeking, among
other things, to determine the validity of certain amendments to a trust
established by her deceased father. Trial was set for February 10, 2020.1 In
January, the trial was continued to April 6 in response to a request by
Haffner that was based on a declaration from her counsel, John Browne,
concerning his medical condition.

        1   Subsequent dates are in 2020 unless otherwise stated.

                                                        1
      The April trial date was continued as a result of court closure for
COVID. In July, trial was set for October 28.
      On October 14, Haffner filed an ex parte application for continuance on
the ground that Browne was unavailable because of illness and needed time
to obtain replacement counsel. The probate court denied the application.
      On October 27, the day before trial, respondent’s counsel executed a
declaration stating that he had not received Haffner’s exhibit list, exhibits,
witness list or trial brief as required by the probate court’s pretrial order and
that Browne had “rebuffed [his] efforts to meet and confer” regarding
stipulations of fact.
      When the case was called for trial on the afternoon of October 28,
neither Haffner nor Browne was present. The probate court granted
respondent’s request to dismiss the petition without prejudice for failure of
petitioner to appear, as authorized by subdivision (b) of section 581 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.2 A written order was entered in November
dismissing Haffner’s petition without prejudice and imposing the monetary
sanctions on Haffner and Browne. No appeal was taken.
      In February 2021, Haffner moved to vacate the dismissal under section
473, subdivision (b), on the grounds of excusable neglect or, in the
alternative, attorney fault. The motion was supported by an eight-page
declaration from Browne. The probate court denied the motion, and Haffner
filed a notice of appeal in September.

      2All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless
otherwise stated.

                                         2
                                DISCUSSION
      Appeals in probate matters are limited to the orders and judgments
specified in the Probate Code, and the Probate Code does not specify
statutory motions to vacate as appealable. (Prob. Code, §§ 1300, 1304;
Kalenian v. Insen (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 569, 575-576 (Kalenian).) Our
Supreme Court explained, referring to former section 1240 of the Probate
Code, “[T]he Probate Code specifies the orders and judgment in probate from
which an appeal will lie, and an order denying relief under section 473 . . . is
not one of the orders so specified.” (In re Estate of O’Dea (1940) 15 Cal.2d
637, 638 (O’Dea); see In re Conservatorship of Harvey (1970) 3 Cal.3d 646,
652 [citing O’Dea in support of holding that order denying motion to vacate is
not appealable in probate matter].)
      In In re Estate of Baker (1915) 170 Cal. 578 (Baker), our Supreme Court
recognized a narrow exception to the general rule that appeals in probate
matters are limited to those orders and judgments specified in the Probate
Code. Under the Baker exception, an order denying a motion to vacate an
appealable judgment or order is itself appealable “when, for reasons involving
no fault of the appealing party, he has never been given an opportunity to
appeal directly from the judgment or decree” he seeks to vacate. (Id. at p.
582.) Haffner argues that the exception applies to her case, but we are not
persuaded.
      In Baker, the decedent’s sister filed a contest of the will, and died
before the trial. (Baker, supra, 170 Cal. at p. 581.) Before a personal
representative was appointed for the contestant, the probate court granted a
motion brought by the executor of the will to dismiss the contest. (Ibid.)
About two months later, an administrator was appointed for the contestant’s
estate, and sought to vacate the dismissal. (Ibid.) The probate court denied

                                        3
the motion and the administrator appealed. (Ibid.) The Supreme Court held
that the order denying the motion to vacate was appealable because the
underlying order was appealable and at the time it was made “no person in
existence could appeal from it” because the contestant was dead, the
authority of her attorneys had ceased with her death, and no personal
representative had been appointed for her. (Id. at pp. 583-584.)
      The crucial fact about Baker and the decisions following it “is that an
appealable judgment [has been] entered ex parte with no notice to the
appealing party. And such an order issued without notice to the appealing
party necessitates the filing of a motion to set aside the judgment which is
deemed appealable.” (Kalenian, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 578.) Thus, our
Supreme Court held in O’Dea that the Baker exception did not apply when
the parties seeking to appeal the denial of a motion to vacate brought under
section 473 had appeared at the trial where the probate court made an order
of dismissal and nonsuit against them. (O’Dea, supra, 15 Cal.2d at pp. 638,
639-640.) In O’Dea the Supreme Court explained that “[t]he peculiar and
unusual situation arising out of the facts in [Baker] does not lay down any
general exception” to the rule that appeals in probate matters are limited to
the orders and judgments specified in the Probate Code; to the contrary
Baker “should be construed with relation to the facts of that case, and
confined to cases of similar import.” (Id. at p. 639.) The facts in O’Dea had
“no similarity to those in” Baker, and therefore Baker was not controlling.
(Id. at pp. 639-634.)
      As was the case in O’Dea, the facts here are unlike those in Baker.
Although Haffner did not appear at the October 28 trial, her situation is
different from the appellant in Baker because Haffner was a party to the
proceeding when the probate court issued its dismissal, had notice of the trial

                                       4
date, and received notice of the dismissal order that she sought to set aside,
as reflected in her payment of sanctions imposed on her and her filing a
motion to tax costs. In these circumstances, the Baker exception does not
apply, and accordingly the order denying Haffner’s motion to vacate is not
appealable.
      Haffner makes a conclusory argument that the facts of her case are
similar to Baker because attorney Browne was somehow “disabled from
appropriately responding to” the dismissal by filing an appeal, just as the
contestant’s attorneys were unable to file an appeal from the dismissal in
Baker. The argument is meritless. In Baker, the contestant’s attorneys could
not appeal because they had no client, and therefore no authority to appeal.
(Baker, supra, 170 Cal. at p. 584.) That is not the situation here. Further,
Browne’s disability demonstrably did not prevent him from responding
appropriately to the dismissal insofar as he paid the sanctions imposed
against him and filed a motion to tax costs.
      Haffner argues that we should treat her appeal as a writ petition if we
conclude that the order she challenges is not appealable. Respondent opposes
treating the appeal as a writ, and asks us to dismiss the appeal. We have the
discretion to treat a purported appeal as a petition for writ of mandate where
the record and briefs include the elements necessary for a writ proceeding
and where the trial court would be only a nominal party, but we do so only in
“unusual circumstances.” (Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 401.) We
decline to treat this appeal as a writ petition because there are no such
circumstances here, particularly in view of the fact that Haffner has filed a
separate writ petition seeking review of the same order that is the subject of
her appeal. (Haffner v. Superior Court, Case No. A164341.) The writ petition
will be addressed separately.

                                       5
                             DISPOSITION
     The appeal is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs on
appeal.

                                     6
                                        _________________________
                                        Miller, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________
Richman, Acting P.J.

_________________________
Markman, J.*

A163564, Haffner v. Perez

     *Judge of the Alameda Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                    7