Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of Martha A. - Case Brief

Case Number: G063437
Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three
Date Filed: August 22, 2025

← Back to Case Summary

Holding

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by considering oral objections raised by Jodee S. after she had been repeatedly ordered to file written objections and had failed to do so; the appellate court therefore reversed the fee‑reduction order and remanded for a new determination without reliance on those improper oral statements.

Narrative

In a tightly contested conservatorship of the late Martha “Marty” A., the California Court of Appeal struck a decisive blow against a trial court that allowed a self‑representing daughter to speak at length and have her remarks weighed in a fee‑reduction ruling, despite her clear waiver of the right to object by failing to file written objections as repeatedly ordered. The decision underscores the appellate court’s insistence that procedural safeguards—particularly the written‑objection regime codified in the Probate Code and the Rules of Court—must be observed to protect due‑process rights in probate litigation.

Procedural backdrop
Richard Huntington, a professional fiduciary, was appointed conservator of both Marty’s person and estate after a series of competing petitions by Marty’s children. Huntington’s law firm, the Law Offices of Eric F. Becker, represented him throughout the litigation and later sought attorney fees for services rendered from February 1, 2021, onward. After an initial accounting was approved in 2021, Huntington resigned as estate conservator but remained responsible for accounting the period up to his resignation.

The second and final accounting, filed June 13, 2022, included a petition for attorney fees on behalf of Becker. Marty’s daughters—Judy, Jodee, and Trudy—objected, but only Judy filed a formal written objection. Jodee repeatedly declined to submit written objections, insisting instead on making “oral objections” during hearings. The trial court, despite explicit warnings that failure to file written objections would constitute a waiver under Probate Code § 2622 and California Rules of Court rule 7.801, allowed Jodee to argue at the May 23 closing‑argument hearing and later considered her statements in the fee‑reduction order.

Issues on appeal
Huntington appealed the trial court’s order reducing Becker’s fee request from $186,990 to $94,955, contending that the court erred by (1) treating Jodee’s oral objections as substantive evidence, and (2) violating procedural due‑process by ignoring the waiver provisions that should have barred Jodee’s participation. The appellate panel examined whether the trial court’s discretion was abused and whether the error was prejudicial.

Court’s analysis
Applying the standard of review for statutory fee awards—abuse of discretion (Kasperbauer v. Fairfield (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 229)—the court first confirmed that factual findings must be supported by substantial evidence, while pure legal questions are reviewed de novo (Roberts v. United Health Care Services, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 132). The appellate panel focused on the procedural requirements of Probate Code §§ 1043 and 2622, which mandate that an interested party’s objections be made in writing at or before the hearing, and on rule 7.801, which deems untimely objections waived.

The record showed a clear, repeated directive from the trial court: Jodee was told on November 2, 2022, February 2, 2023, and March 27, 2023 to file written objections by specific deadlines, with the explicit warning that failure to do so would be deemed a waiver. Jodee’s own statements—“I refuse to write another objection because it only churns more fees”—demonstrated a knowing and intentional waiver. Yet, the trial court, sua sponte, permitted her to present a seven‑page oral statement at the May hearing and later “gave appropriate weight” to those remarks in reducing the fee award.

The appellate court held that this conduct constituted an abuse of discretion. Courts may modify their own orders, but such modification must be accompanied by notice to the parties (Kerns v. CSE Ins. Group (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 368). Here, no notice was given, and the parties were blindsided by the trial court’s reversal of its own procedural rulings. Moreover, the court’s reliance on Jodee’s oral statements violated the waiver doctrine; the appellate panel emphasized that “the procedural safeguards exist to ensure fairness and predictability, especially in complex probate matters where fees can run into six figures.”

The error was deemed prejudicial. By allowing Jodee’s unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and personal attacks to influence the fee reduction, the trial court tainted the factual basis for its decision. The appellate panel noted that the fee reduction hinged on the court’s assessment that Becker’s services were “colored” by the contentious litigation—a conclusion drawn directly from Jodee’s oral attacks. Excluding those statements would likely have produced a different fee determination.

Disposition and forward look
Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the fee‑reduction order and remanded the case for a new determination consistent with the opinion. The remand must be conducted without reference to Jodee’s oral objections; the trial court may consider only Judy’s written objections and any other admissible evidence. The court also left open the possibility of an evidentiary hearing on the fee petition if the parties so request.

Implications for probate practice
The decision sends a clear message to California probate judges: procedural rules governing objections to accountings are not mere formalities but enforceable rights that, when ignored, constitute reversible error. Attorneys representing conservators must vigilantly enforce written‑objection deadlines, and self‑represented parties cannot rely on “oral objections” to circumvent procedural mandates. The ruling also reinforces the appellate courts’ willingness to scrutinize fee‑reduction orders where the underlying factual record is tainted by inadmissible statements.

Unresolved questions remain, however. The opinion does not address whether the trial court could have, on its own initiative, reopened the fee‑reduction proceeding after the oral objections were made, provided proper notice was given. Future litigants may test the limits of a court’s ability to modify its own procedural orders without violating due‑process guarantees.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

Probate Code §§ 1043(a)–(b) – Requirements for written objections at hearings.
Probate Code § 2622 – Waiver of objections when not filed in writing.
Probate Code § 2640(d)(1) – Compensation limitations for conservators.
California Rules of Court rule 7.801 – Effect of untimely objections.
Standard of review – Abuse of discretion for statutory fee awards (Kasperbauer v. Fairfield).
Substantial evidence test – (Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Assn. v. McMullin).
De novo review of pure legal issues – (Roberts v. United Health Care Services).
Court’s power to modify its orders – (Kerns v. CSE Ins. Group).
Due‑process notice requirement – (In re Emily R.).
Estate of Kirkpatrick – Waiver of objections when not specifically alleged.

These authorities collectively shape the procedural landscape governing conservatorship accountings and attorney‑fee petitions in California probate courts.