Court Opinion

ID: 9398346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-30 22:04:04.505231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:32.934736
License: Public Domain

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            NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                               A166079
 v.
 JOSEPH LEE WASHINGTON,                                          (Alameda County Super.
          Defendant and Respondent.                              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

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

California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.
       Washington ostensibly appeals from trial court orders entered
        2

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.)
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.
                                     2
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.)

                                    3
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.

                                    4
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.
                                    5