Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Guardianship Petition Should Have Been Dismissed.
In our May 9 and August 22, 2009 posts, we explored developments in a petition brought by Paul Petersen to undertake certain actions for the alleged benefit of the octuplets of Nadya Suleman. The main battle was Mr. Petersen’s efforts to obtain an appointment of a guardian over the octuplets’ estates. If granted, the guardian might have been entitled to recover fees, but that seems unlikely based a recent ruling from the Fourth District, Division 3.
In the late afternoon of January 8, the Fourth District, Division 3’s decision in Suleman v. Superior Court (Petersen), Case No. G042509 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 8, 2010) (certified for publication) was posted on the Internet. The appellate panel determined that Ms. Suleman’s motion to dismiss the guardianship petition should have been granted because Mr. Petersen did not show she had engaged in any financial misconduct for purposes of warranting appointment of a guardian under Probate Code section 1510.
Justice Fybel, writing for the 3-0 panel, also penned a scholarly discussion of section 1510(a) standing requirements.
This likely should mean that any attorney’s fees battle on the guardianship front is over, except that the panel did award Ms. Suleman her costs for winning on appeal
OCTAGON
