Court Opinion

ID: 9889572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-10 18:08:43.830459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:17.688798
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/10/23

                 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                           DIVISION SIX

 GEORGE A. BAILEY, et al.,                 2d Civ. No. B320664
                                       (Super. Ct. No. 20PR00422)
      Petitioners and Respondents,       (Santa Barbara County)

 v.

 MITCHELL A. BAILEY,

      Objector and Appellant.

       Appellant Mitchell Bailey is the only child of the late James
Bailey. Mitchell1 opposed respondent Olan Mills II’s petition to
probate a 2001 will that effectively denied Mitchell any share of
his father’s estate. The court approved the petition and admitted
the will to probate. Mitchell appeals. He contends Mills filed his
petition beyond the period allowed by Probate Code section 8226,
subdivision (c).2 We affirm.

        1 We use first names to avoid confusion.   No disrespect is
intended.
        2 Unlabeled statutory cites are to the Probate Code.
         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       James Harvey Bailey (Harvey) died on October 16, 2020.
Harvey’s brother, George Bailey, petitioned for letters of
administration on November 6, 2020 and sought appointment as
special administrator of the estate. The petition alleged Harvey
died intestate with estimated assets of $575,000, including his
single-family home in Orcutt, California. Theia Bailey, Harvey’s
sister, and appellant Mitchell were the only persons served with
the petition.
       George subsequently found a document dated February 12,
2001, entitled “Last Will and Testament of James Harvey Bailey”
among Harvey’s effects. He lodged it with the court on December
22, 2020 and served copies on Theia, Mitchell, and himself. The
will bequeathed Harvey’s common stock in General Electric and
other companies to Mitchell. It specified a cash gift to his friend
and former employer, respondent Olan Mills II. The balance of
the estate went to various individuals, charities, and schools.
       George and Mitchell appeared on January 5, 2021 for the
petition hearing. The court asked whether George planned to
admit the will to probate. George said he did not. His immediate
plan was to obtain letters of administration so he could open an
estate bank account, pay Harvey’s outstanding debts, and
marshal the estate’s assets. The will’s validity, he explained,
could be litigated once these more pressing matters were
addressed. The court agreed. It approved the intestate petition
so George could “get things organized” and assured Mitchell that
George was not yet authorized to “divide any money up.” It filed
a probate order on January 13 finding Harvey died intestate.
Letters of administration issued on February 17.
       George served the will’s beneficiaries, including respondent
Mills, with a document entitled “Notice to Potential Beneficiary
of Petition for Letters of Administration Under Probate Code

                                 2
§ 8226” on March 4, 2021. The notice included copies of the will,
the petition, the probate order, and letters of administration.
       George filed a final inventory and appraisal on May 17,
2021. It listed no common stock among Harvey’s assets, meaning
Mitchell stood to inherit nothing if the will were admitted to
probate. Mills petitioned to probate the will ten days later on
May 27.
       Mitchell objected to Mills’s petition as untimely under
section 8226, subdivision (c).3 After an evidentiary hearing, the
probate court admitted the will over Mitchell’s and George’s
objections. It concluded section 8226, subdivision (c) did not
apply because Mills was not served with the original petition in
advance of the January 2021 hearing.
                            DISCUSSION
       Mitchell contends the court erred when it admitted the will
to probate because Mills’s petition was untimely under section
8226, subdivision (c). The parties do not dispute the facts
material to this question. As such, “[w]e review the probate
court’s construction of the Probate Code de novo.” (Babbitt v.
Superior Court (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1144.)
       Generally, “any interested person” may petition to admit a
will to probate “[a]t any time after a decedent’s death.” (§ 8000,
subd. (a).) This is true even if the court has already distributed
property of the decedent’s estate. (See § 8226, subd. (b) [“a will
may be admitted to probate notwithstanding . . . prior
distribution of property in the proceeding”].) Section 8226,
subdivision (c) creates an exception to the general rule. It states:
“If the proponent of a will has received notice of . . . a petition for

      3 Mitchell and George objected to Mills’s petition on other

grounds as well. Mitchell does not raise them on appeal.

                                   3
letters of administration for a general personal representative,
the proponent of the will may petition for probate of the will only
within the later of either of the following time periods: [¶]
(1) One hundred twenty days after issuance of the order . . .
determining the decedent to be intestate. [¶] (2) Sixty days after
the proponent of the will first obtains knowledge of the will.”
(§ 8226, subd. (c), italics added.)
       Mitchell contends George’s “Notice to Potential Beneficiary”
triggered Section 8226, subdivision (c)’s 60-day and 120-day
deadlines. The probate court erred by admitting the will, he
argues, because Mills petitioned for probate after these deadlines
had expired. Mills contends subdivision (c) does not apply to him
because he did not receive pre-hearing notice of the original
petition in compliance with section 8110.4 Mills is correct.
       “[I]n the context of the Probate Code, ‘notice’ has a
particular meaning, as it may have constitutional due process
implications.” (Estate of Kelly (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1373
(Kelly).) George’s Notice to Potential Beneficiary gave Mills none
of the due process afforded to those who received formal notice of
the original petition under section 8110. The hearing on the
petition occurred two months prior. The court had already given

      4 Section 8110 states:  “At least 15 days before the hearing
of a petition for administration of a decedent’s estate, the
petitioner shall deliver notice of the hearing pursuant to Section
1215 on all of the following persons: [¶] (a) Each heir of the
decedent, so far as known to or reasonably ascertainable by the
petitioner. [¶] (b) Each devisee, executor, and alternative
executor named in any will being offered for probate, regardless
of whether the devise or appointment is purportedly revoked in a
subsequent instrument.” Neither party raised, nor do we
consider, whether notice by publication pursuant to section 8120
et seq. constitutes notice under section 8226, subdivision (c).

                                4
George the relief he sought by issuing a probate order and letters
of administration. Receiving a physical copy of the adjudicated
petition did not provide Mills the opportunity to be heard on its
merits. He received, at most, courtesy notice of a pending
probate case in which he was a potential beneficiary. As the trial
court noted, if George sought to bring the will’s beneficiaries
within the ambit of section 8226, he should have amended his
petition and served them pursuant to section 8110.
       Mitchell’s liberal interpretation of the phrase “has received
notice” is also inconsistent with the statute’s plain language. The
Legislature could have drafted subdivision (c) to apply to those
will proponents who receive notice of some post-hearing event,
such as issuance of a probate order or letters of administration.
It did not. Subdivision (c) refers only to those who have “received
notice of a petition for probate or a petition for letters of
administration.” (§ 8226, subd. (c), italics added.) This can mean
only notice of the petition under section 8110. “Section 8226(c),
with its time limits, is an exception to the general rule permitting
a petition to probate a will at any time. An exception or
limitation is to be strictly construed.” (Kelly, supra, 172
Cal.App.4th at p. 1375.)
       Limiting application of section 8226, subdivision (c) to those
who receive notice under section 8110 will not, as Mitchell
argues, hinder the prompt administration of estates. (See, e.g.,
Estate of Earley (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 369, 377, quoting Estate
of Wilcox (1945) 68 Cal.App.2d 780, 786 [“section 8226 provides
filing deadlines for admitting a will to probate regardless of . . .
whether estate proceedings have already commenced based on a
determination of intestacy. This interpretation ‘facilitate[s] the
prompt administration of estates.’”].) The will proponent who
takes no action despite knowledge of a pending probate case risks
losing their claim to distributed estate assets. (§ 8226, subd. (b),

                                 5
italics added [“a will may be admitted to probate notwithstanding
prior admission to probate of another will or prior distribution of
property in the proceeding. The will may not affect property
previously distributed, but the court may determine how any
provision of the will affects property not yet distributed and how
any provision of the will affects provisions of another will”].) This
provides ample incentive to present the will promptly.
                           DISPOSITION
       Judgment (the order admitting the will to probate) is
affirmed. Respondent shall recover his costs on appeal.
       CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION.

                                     CODY, J.

We concur:

      YEGAN, Acting P.J.

      BALTODANO, J.

                                 6
                    James F. Rigali, Judge
           Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
              ______________________________

      M. Jude Egan for Objector and Appellant Mitchell A.
Bailey.
      Tardiff Law Offices, Neil Tardiff; Law Office of Laura
Hoffman King, Laura Hoffman King, for Petitioner and
Respondent Olan Mills, II.
      No appearances by Respondents George A. Bailey and Save
the Redwoods League.

                              7