California

Warning: The following opinion is provided for purposes of discussion only. We have not Shepardized™ this opinion, and do not know the subsequent disposition of this case nor whether the effect of the opinion has been overruled or superceded by other law.

In re Williams,
No. B161571 (Cal.App. Dist.2 04/29/2004)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

B161571

2004.CA.0003854

April 29, 2004

IN RE CONSERVATORSHIP OF GEORGE W. WILLIAMS.
REGINALD BURGESS, OBJECTOR AND APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN D. WILLIAMS PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Richard C. Hubbell, Judge. Affirmed. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BP 070275)

Reginald Burgess, in propria persona, for Objector and Appellant.

Law Offices of Andrea VanLeesten, Andrea VanLeesten, and L'tanya M. Butler; Bloom & Ruttenberg and Gary M. Ruttenberg for Petitioner and Respondent.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Armstrong, J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

Objector and appellant Reginald Burgess (appellant) appeals the August 8, 2002 order of the trial court, pursuant to which, among other things, certain real property was ordered transferred from appellant to respondent J.D. Williams as executor of the estate of George W. Williams. We affirm the trial court's orders.

FACTS *fn1

Respondent was appointed executor of the person and estate of his brother, George W. Williams. Respondent filed a petition seeking the return to his brother of the latter's residence, commonly known as 1715 South Victoria Avenue in Los Angeles (the "residence"). In 2001, the residence had been transferred first into the living trust of George and June Williams, and then by appellant's then wife Karen Sparks, as trustee, to appellant as a "gift." After three days of hearings in June 2002, the trial court ruled that title to the property be transferred to respondent as the conservator of the estate of George W. Williams. That ruling was reduced to an order dated August 8, 2002. Appellant filed a notice of appeal pursuant to which he appealed "the whole of the orders signed and entered on August 8, 2002 sua sponte by the court."

In his opening brief on appeal, appellant limits his challenge to the August 8, 2002 order to a lack of jurisdiction in the trial court based on the purported removal of this case to federal court on August 3, 2002: "When Judge Hubbell signed the order August 8, 2002, he was without jurisdiction and he simply performed a null and void act. Q.E.D. - end of appeal, the order must be vacated." We find that Judge Hubbell had jurisdiction to enter the August 8 order, and thus that the appeal fails.

After the trial court ruled in favor of respondent on June 11, 2002, appellant filed "removal" papers in federal court. That pleading, captioned "Reginald Burgess, Plaintiff v. John D. Williams, and Does 1 -10, Defendants" cited as the basis of federal court jurisdiction "the Defendants violation of 42 U.S.C. 3617. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff by intentionally interfering in the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental facilities for the provision of services for placement of a lawful dwelling." No such case existed, and the Federal District Court rebuffed appellant's improper attempt to invoke its jurisdiction, stating: "This case was improperly accepted by the Clerk of this Court. . . . On the court's own motion, this case is dismissed with prejudice." Appellant's attempts to manipulate the courts in this case to secure an undeserved advantage were unsuccessful. Appellant cites no authority which would require this court to reward him for his duplicitous behavior. In short, Judge Hubbell had jurisdiction to enter the orders made on August 8, 2002.

Appellant also maintains that his title to the residence was somehow established in the bankruptcy proceeding which he initiated after the trial court's orders in this case. His argument, as we understand it, is that, because he claimed a homestead exemption on the residence in the bankruptcy proceedings, the issue of title to the property was necessarily adjudicated in his favor upon his discharge from bankruptcy.

On appeal, this court is limited to a review of the proceedings below to determine whether the trial court erred. Appellant's filing of a petition in bankruptcy, and the subsequent discharge of that petition, do not invalidate the prior valid orders of the superior court.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

We concur:

TURNER, P.J.

GRIGNON, J.

Opinion Footnotes

*fn1 Appellant filed a request for judicial notice, pursuant to which he requested that this court issue the following order: "Upon review of the Motion for Judicial Notice, the files, records and relevant law of the argument of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Los Angeles Superior court shall vacate the August 8, 2002 order as having been entered in excess of jurisdiction by 28 USC 1446(d) and Pacheco v Pacheco 224 Cal.App.3d 171 (Cal.App.Dist.1 09/28/1990) 2. This order is a permanent injunction by 11 USC 524(a)(2) 3. Williams waived pursuit of title in Bankruptcy AD03- 01756ER 4. The Los Angeles County Recorder shall expunge and remove the judicial lien as document image 021884046. 5. Appellant- Debtor shall recover costs." The request fails to comply with the requirements of Evidence Code sections 452 and 459, and accordingly is denied.

The legal opinions are a matter of public record (that's how we got them), and as such there can be no defamation for republishing them. Sometimes, however, legal opinions are reversed, vacated, or significantly modified, etc., and we do not discover this fact until somebody points it out to us. As we do not desire to publish inaccurate or outdated information, if a legal opinion has been reversed, vacated, or significantly modified, please advise us of this fact immediately, by fax to (877) 698-0678 or you may also send regular postal correspondence to Riser Adkisson LLP at 1827 Powers Ferry Road, Building One, Suite 200, Atlanta GA 30339.