Estate of Rampias

Filed 7/6/06 Estate of Rampias CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. H. Ronald Hauptman, Commissioner. Affirmed.

Baker, Keener & Nahra, Robert C. Baker, John P. Nahra and Laurence C. Osborn for Petitioner and Appellant.

Dion-Kindem & Crockett, William E. Crockett, Steven R. Skirvin and Melanie Gardner‑Pawlak for Objector and Respondent.

* * * * * *

Appellant Frank Russo (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered after the probate court granted summary judgment in favor of respondent John Rampias (respondent) and against appellant on the grounds that appellant's 1955 adoption was valid and thus appellant had no right to inherit from the estate of Stephen Rampias (decedent). We affirm.

CONTENTIONS

Appellant contends that respondent failed to meet his burden to prevail on summary judgment under former Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (p)(2)[1] because respondent failed to negate or show a complete defense to appellant's claim that a 1955 adoption decree, which severed the parent-child relationship between appellant and decedent and cut off appellant's right to inherit from decedent, was invalid. Specifically, appellant contends that: (1) numerous disputed facts existed as to the validity of the adoption decree; (2) the probate court misapplied the law regarding notice requirements in effect at the time of his adoption; (3) the statute of limitations under former Civil Code section 227d (now Fam. Code, § 9102) is not applicable to appellant's petition in the probate court; and (4) the probate court had no authority to dismiss or enter judgment against appellant on the grounds that the probate court was not the proper place to rule on the validity of an adoption.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The adoption

Appellant was born on April 2, 1954. Appellant's adoption records reveal that on May 11, 1954, his birth mother, Helen Buonarti (Buonarti), who had sole custody pursuant to former Civil Code section 200 (â€