Estate of Singh CA2/6

Filed 9/19/23 Estate of Singh CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
Estate of SUKHJINDER 2d Civil No. B326970
SINGH, Deceased. (Super. Ct. No. 19PR-0348)
(San Luis Obispo County)
MARISOL CUEVA,
Contestant and Respondent,
v.
IKE M. IQBAL, as Executor,
etc.,
Claimant and Respondent;
NIKI HAMIDI,
Objector and Appellant.
Niki Hamidi appeals from an order approving the
settlement of Marisol Cueva’s paternity claim against the estate
of Sukhjinder Singh. Hamidi contends the order should be
vacated because: (1) the probate court lacked jurisdiction to enter
it, and (2) Cueva’s claim was fraudulent.1 We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2
Singh died in September 2016. Cueva filed a petition to
administer his estate three years later. In her petition, Cueva
claimed she is the mother of Singh’s son.
Hamidi objected to Cueva’s petition and filed a creditor’s
claim against it. She then announced her intent to move the
claim to criminal or civil court, but later requested its dismissal.
The trial court granted Hamidi’s dismissal request.
Cueva petitioned the trial court to determine whether
Singh is her son’s father. (See Prob. Code,3 § 6453.) Hamidi
objected to the petition. Iqbal, the person nominated to be
executor of Singh’s will, urged the court to deny it because Singh
did not acknowledge his alleged parentage.
After the trial court ordered Singh’s will probated and
issued Iqbal letters of administration, Iqbal and Cueva settled
1 Hamidi also claims the orders admitting Singh’s will to
probate and appointing Ike M. Iqbal as executor of Singh’s estate
were unlawful. We upheld those orders in a previous opinion (see
Estate of Singh (Aug. 17, 2023, B325245) [2023 WL 5282691]
[nonpub. opn.]), and do not revisit the matters here (see Leider v.
Lewis (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1121, 1127). Additionally, for the first
time in her reply brief, Hamidi asks us to impose $250,000 in
sanctions against Iqbal’s attorney. We deny this request without
further discussion. (Moore v. Shaw (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 182,
200, fn. 10.)
2 Hamidi’s motion to correct the citations to the record in
her briefs on appeal, filed August 28, 2023, is granted.
3 Unlabeled statutory references are to the Probate Code.
2
Cueva’s paternity claim, subject to the probate court’s approval.
Iqbal petitioned the court to approve the settlement. Attached to
his petition was a declaration describing his investigation and
evaluation of Cueva’s claim and the potential liability to Singh’s
estate that would be eliminated if the settlement were approved.
Cueva confirmed she would dismiss her claim upon approval of
the settlement.
A hearing on the settlement petition was set for February
7, 2023. On January 11, notice of the hearing was served on all
parties, including Hamidi. Copies of the petition, supporting
declarations, and proposed order were served alongside the
hearing notice.
Hamidi filed no written opposition to the settlement
petition. She did not appear at the hearing on its approval. After
the hearing concluded, however, Hamidi objected to the petition.
The probate court approved it over Hamidi’s tardy objection.
DISCUSSION
The probate court’s jurisdiction
Hamidi contends the probate court lacked jurisdiction to
approve the settlement of Cueva’s paternity claim against Singh’s
estate because she transferred the case to civil or criminal court.
This contention fails because a party cannot unilaterally transfer
a case. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (b)(2) [dismissal of action
requires consent of other parties]; Voyce v. Superior Court (1942)
20 Cal.2d 479, 484 [Code of Civil Procedure’s dismissal provisions
apply to will contests].)
Moreover, the probate court has jurisdiction over estate
administration. (§ 7050.) It has the power to appoint the
executor of an estate. (§ 8400.) And it has the power to approve
the executor’s settlement of a claim against the estate. (§ 9836.)
3
The probate court therefore had jurisdiction to approve the
settlement of Cueva’s paternity claim.
Cueva’s paternity claim
Hamidi also contends the probate court should not have
approved the settlement of Cueva’s paternity claim against
Singh’s estate because the claim was fraudulent. But Hamidi did
not file written objections to the settlement of the claim. Nor did
she attend the hearing on its approval to object—despite having
sufficient notice. (See §§ 1220, subd. (a)(1), 9837, subd. (c)
[requiring 15 calendar days’ notice].) Such an objection is
required “before the probate court is required to take any action
at all.” (Forthmann v. Boyer (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 977, 988.)
Because Hamidi did not lodge one, her contention is forfeited.
(Conservatorship of Farrant (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 370, 377.)
It also lacks merit. A petition to approve a settlement
against an estate “shall show the terms of the . . . settlement . . .
and its advantage to the estate.” (§ 9837, subd. (b).) We review
the probate court’s approval of such a settlement for abuse of
discretion. (Estate of Green (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d 25, 28.) When
applying this standard of review, we review findings of fact for
substantial evidence, and will find reversible error only if the
court’s “application of the law to the facts is . . . arbitrary and
capricious.” (Haraguchi v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 706,
711-712.)
Substantial evidence supports the probate court’s finding
that the settlement of Cueva’s claim would be advantageous to
Singh’s estate. With his petition to approve the settlement Iqbal
included a declaration describing his investigation and
evaluation of Cueva’s claim and the value to Singh’s estate if the
settlement were approved. And Cueva submitted a declaration
4
stating she would drop her claim against the estate upon the
settlement’s approval. That was clearly advantageous to Singh’s
estate. (Estate of Lucas (1943) 23 Cal.2d 454, 466-467 [settling
potentially meritorious claim without litigation advantageous to
estate].)
DISPOSITION
The probate court’s order approving the settlement of
Marisol Cueva’s paternity claim against the estate of Sukhjinder
Singh, entered February 22, 2023, is affirmed. Ike M. Iqbal shall
recover his costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
BALTODANO, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P. J.
YEGAN, J.
5
Tana L. Coates, Judge
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
______________________________
Niki Hamidi, in pro. per., for Objector and Appellant.
Andre, Morris & Buttery and James C. Buttery for
Claimant and Respondent.
No appearance for Contestant and Respondent.