Estate of Miller CA4/3
G064476
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 6, 2025Background
- Dispute arises between siblings regarding the estate of their brother, James Miller, after his death in July 2022.
- Joanne Merrett (executor and respondent) filed a probate petition in San Bernardino County; Munson (represented by attorney Holly Gilani) sought to transfer venue to Riverside County.
- Merrett opposed the venue motion and sought monetary sanctions against Gilani under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 128.5 and 396b.
- The trial court awarded sanctions in favor of Merrett against Gilani under both statutes, after several continued hearings.
- Gilani appealed, challenging both the procedural adequacy of the sanction motions and the sufficiency of the notice she received for the hearings at which sanctions were decided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sanctions under CCP § 128.5 | Gilani's actions justified sanctions; procedure was sufficient | Motion for sanctions was not made separately; no 21-day safe harbor given | Sanctions invalid: Merrett failed to file a separate motion and give the required safe harbor |
| Sanctions under CCP § 396b | Appropriate due to bad faith and unnecessary venue motion | Did not receive adequate notice of continued sanctions hearings | Sanctions reversed/remanded: Gilani was not given proper notice and opportunity to be heard |
| Liability for Sanctions (Attorney v. Party) | Sanctions should be imposed personally on Gilani (Munson's former counsel) | Sanctions request did not specify, and Gilani not properly notified | Court clarified: 396b sanctions solely attorney's responsibility but must include proper notice |
| Need for Notice and Opportunity to Respond | Procedures complied with or were sufficient | Lack of notice of further hearings after withdrawal as counsel; denied due process | Found insufficient notice; opportunity to be heard required before imposing attorney sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Zarate v. McDaniel, 97 Cal.App.5th 484 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) (court independently reviews whether sanctions award comports with statutory requirements)
- Transcon Financial, Inc. v. Reid & Hellyer, APC, 81 Cal.App.5th 547 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (strict compliance with safe harbor provision required for sanctions)
- In re Marriage of Reese & Guy, 73 Cal.App.4th 1214 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (reversal of sanctions extends to parties not appealing if order is indivisible)
- Artus v. Gramercy Towers Condominium Assn., 76 Cal.App.5th 1043 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (abuse of discretion standard for sanctions reviewed as arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable)
- In re Woodham, 95 Cal.App.4th 438 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (review of sanctions award under CCP 396b for abuse of discretion)