The Story The Issues The Litigation Related More Info Forums Blog Contact Dockets
The Invitation My Petition for Division of Trust Milking the Trust Inquisitorial Motion

Web Site Under Construction

Ambushed Appeals

At the March 23,1995 hearing, Judge Letteau indicated that I could appeal his finding.  

However, he ordered the minute order to be sent immediately that day (as stated in the minute order itself) to the "vexatious litigant" office of the Judicial Council. This resulted in my being immediately blacklisted.   

April 3,1995 I filed my notice of appeal (2nd District Court of Appeal case no. B091822.  

On May 10,1995, the Court of Appeal granted the City National's motion to dismiss appeal no. B091822 as being premature, having been filed prior to issuance of the probate court's formal findings.  City National had contended there was no prejudice to me in dismissing the appeal, because it could be refiled.

May 11, 1995, the probate court issued its formal findings and order requiring security.

May 11, 1995, my petition for division of trust was ordered dismissed for failure to pay the required security by May 11, 1995.

May 22,1995, City National served a probate court motion for sanctions against me under CAL.CIV.PROC.CODE Sec. 128.5 based apparently on the same papers based upon which I had been declared a vexatious litigant.  

June 9, 1995, I filed my notice of appeal of the May 11, 1995 order finding me to be a "vexatious litigant", requiring security, and of the dismissal of my petition for division of trust (court of appeal case no. B093673).

July 10,1995, the probate court issued an order granting sanctions against me under  CAL.CIV .PROC.CODE Sec.128.5 and permitting City National to take 100% of my trust income to satisfy the order (pursuant to Estate of Ivy (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 873).  

July 26,1995, I filed notice of appeal of the probate court's July 10,1995 order (Court of Appeal case no. B094661 ).  

August 30,1995, the Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals because I had "previously been found to be a vexatious litigant"; citing Andrisini v. Hoodack (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 281.   I filed a petition for rehearings September 13,1995. These were granted and both appeals were reinstated by order dated September 26, 1995.  

March 28,1996, however, the Court of Appeal again dismissed my appeals on the same grounds.   Obviously there was procedural confusion caused by this vexatious law which is antithetical to judicial procedure.

And April 17,1996 my petitions for rehearings were denied.   

June 26, 1996, the California Supreme Court denied my petitions for review (in both appeals).   

January 13,1997 my petition for a writ of certiorari (regarding these two appeals) was  denied by the United States Supreme Court.