In law, phrases can be similar but nonetheless distinct. For example, in the probate context, Letters of Administration can be issued as well as Letters of Special Administration. The former typically permits a person to administer an estate with general powers. The latter permits a person to administer an estate with limited powers. Therefore both grant the ability to administer an estate albeit to a different degree.
The uniqueness of legal terminology can ensnare the unsuspecting litigant. A recent unpublished appellate opinion involved a litigant who erroneously thought they had properly objected when in fact they had not.
“Sister filed an ex parte application seeking suspension of Brother’s
trustee powers in February 2024, though the application itself is not in
the record. Brother opposed the ex parte, arguing his parents did not
want the house to be sold, that he needed to live in the home to care
for the parties’ disabled sister (not a party to this case),[2]
that the underlying settlement should be set aside, that Sister
violated the settlement agreement, and that there was no emergency
justifying ex parte relief. The trial court granted the application and
suspended Brother’s cotrustee powers.
At a May 2024 initial hearing on the petition, the trial court noted
no written objections to the petition had yet been filed and warned
Brother that ‘if he fail[ed] to serve and file a timely objection or
response by 08/01/2024, the Court may deem such objection or response
waived.’ The court continued the hearing for nearly three months.
At the August 2024 hearing, the trial court found Brother failed to
file a written objection. The court told the parties it had previously
set a deadline for written objections and had not received a written
objection. Brother asked for a continuance, explaining he believed he
had filed objections in the body of a separate petition he had
previously filed against Sister, describing it as “excusable neglect” on
his part. He denied understanding that there was a deadline for the
filing of written objections. The trial court then placed Brother under
oath and asked him why he did not file timely written objections.
Brother responded that he was overwhelmed by his various
responsibilities relating to the trust and the parties’ disabled sister.
The trial court found there was no mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect, and deemed the objections waived.
Accordingly, the trial court granted Sister’s petition, removed Brother
as cotrustee of the trust, permitted Sister to evict any remaining
occupants of the parents’ former home, and awarded attorney fees to
Sister in an amount to be determined.”
On appeal, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s ruling finding that objecting to an ex parte application does not constitute an objection to the underlying petition.
Brown v. Mansueto, San Diego County Superior Court case no. 37-2008-00152252