Sankary v. Ringgold
Filed 8/26/08 Sankary v. Ringgold CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
MYER J. SANKARY, as Successor Trustee, etc, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NINA RINGGOLD, Defendant and Appellant. | B204931 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PP005201) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Aviva K. Bobb, Judge. Dismissed.
Nina Ringgold in pro. per. for Defendant and Appellant.
Law Offices of Andrea Lynn Rice and Andrea Lynn Rice for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I. INTRODUCTION
Nina Ringgold appeals from an October 30, 2007 order on a petition for instructions filed by Myer J. Sankary, as successor trustee of the Aubry Family Trust. Because Ms. Ringgold has refused and continues to refuse to obey a probate court order issued on December 16, 2005, we dismiss the appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
An appellate court may dismiss an appeal by a party who has refused to obey a trial courts legal orders. (National Union v. Arnold (1954) 348 U.S. 37, 44-45; Moffat v. Moffat (1980) 27 Cal.3d 645, 652; MacPherson v. MacPherson (1939) 13 Cal.2d 271, 277; Knoob v. Knoob (1923) 192 Cal. 95, 96-97; In re Claudia S. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 236, 244; Guardianship of Melissa W. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1299; TMS, Inc. v. Aihara (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 377, 379-380; Alioto Fish Co. v. Alioto (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1669, 1675, 1682-1685; Say & Say v. Castellano (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 88, 94; Stone v. Bach (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 442, 444, 448-449; Estate of Scott (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 590, 591-594; Kottemann v. Kottemann (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 483, 487-488; Tobin v. Casaus (1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 588, 589-593.) The California Supreme Court has held, A party to an action cannot, with right or reason, ask the aid and assistance of a court in hearing his demands while he stands in an attitude of contempt to legal orders and processes of the courts of this state. [Citations.] (MacPherson v. MacPherson, supra, 13 Cal.2d at p. 277; see In re Kamelia S. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1228.) We possess the inherent power to use our processes to induce compliance with a presumptively valid court order. (Say & Say v. Castellano, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 94; Stone v. Bach, supra, 80 Cal.App.3d at p. 446.) We may exercise this power when there has been willful disobedience or obstructive tactics without a contempt adjudication. (In re Claudia S., supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 244; Guardianship of Melissa W., supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 1299; TMS, Inc. v. Aihara, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 379; Alioto Fish Co. v. Alioto, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 1683; Stone v. Bach, supra, 80 Cal.App.3d at pp. 444-447.)
On December 16, 2005, the probate court ordered Ms. Ringgold, who was the former trustee, within 48 hours, [T]o cooperate and forthwith turn[]over to [successor trustee] Myer Sankary all documents and keys necessary to transfer possession of the personal property of the decedents Robert Aubry and Mary Aubry Estate now located in the Public Storage facility. The probate court further ordered, Myer Sankary is authorized to release the personal property to such beneficiaries of Robert and Mary Aubry as are entitled to said property and in accordance with their agreement. Ms. Ringgold has not complied with the December 16, 2005 order; moreover, she refuses to do so. We have previously held that Ms. Ringgold is legally obligated to obey the December 16, 2005 order. (In re Ringgold (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1015-1016.)
On July 15, 2008, we issued an order to show cause why the present appeal should not be dismissed for Ms. Ringgolds willful disobedience of the probate courts December 16, 2005 order. We heard oral argument on the order to show cause on August 6, 2008. Because Ms. Ringgold has refused and continues to refuse to comply with the probate courts December 16, 2005 order, we dismiss the appeal.
III. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed. Myer J. Sankary, as Successor Trustee of the Aubry Family Trust, is to recover his costs on appeal from Nina Ringgold.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
TURNER, P.J.
We concur.
ARMSTRONG, J.
FLIER, J.*
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
* Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
