Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In 2023, Blanca Marcelina Flores and Rocio Gabriela Flores filed requests for elder abuse restraining orders against their six siblings, seeking contact with their elderly mother. The superior court consolidated the cases and appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) for the mother. Based on the GAL's recommendation, the court ordered professionally monitored visits for the plaintiffs, later removing and then reinstating the monitoring requirement due to conflicts with siblings and caregivers. In February 2025, the parties reached an agreement regarding visitation.
In March 2025, the GAL petitioned for payment of her fees and costs from the mother's estate and sought discharge from her duties. The mother passed away the day after the petition was filed. Defendants opposed the GAL's petition, arguing plaintiffs should pay the fees because their allegations were baseless. In September 2025, the court approved $70,620 in fees and $519.32 in costs, ordering plaintiffs to pay 68 percent jointly and severally, with the remaining 32 percent paid from the Flores Revocable Living Trust. The court found the mother wanted relationships with all her children, which "should have been accomplished much sooner and at far less expense," and that plaintiffs bore "significant responsibility for the extent of the GAL fees incurred." Plaintiffs appealed the fee allocation order.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It first denied defendant Luz Palacio's motion to dismiss the appeal and motion for sanctions, concluding the GAL and Trust were not indispensable parties because plaintiffs challenged only the allocation of fees, not the amount. The court had previously ordered notice to the GAL and trustee, curing any concerns about their absence.
On the merits, the court reviewed the fee allocation for abuse of discretion under Probate Code section 1003, subdivision (c), which gives courts broad authority to order GAL fees paid from the estate, by the petitioner, or from any other source. The court rejected plaintiffs' numerous challenges: they provided no evidence of a prior estate-based payment structure; the trial court expressly found plaintiffs bore significant responsibility for the fees; plaintiffs failed to cite record support for claims that defendants caused delays; plaintiffs never asked the trial court to consider their ability to pay; the allocation was not a punitive sanction requiring misconduct; plaintiffs had notice and opportunity to oppose the fee request; and plaintiffs forfeited arguments about fiduciary conflicts and procedural defects in defendants' joint declaration by not raising them below. The court also found no due process violation from plaintiffs' absence at an OSC hearing because they did not explain what they would have done differently or how it affected the outcome.
Key Takeaways
- Probate Code section 1003, subdivision (c) grants trial courts broad discretion to allocate guardian ad litem fees to the estate, the petitioner, or any other source, and such allocations are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Appellants must provide an adequate record to demonstrate error; failure to cite relevant portions of the record or provide reporter's transcripts requires issues to be resolved against the appellant.
- Arguments not raised in the trial court are forfeited on appeal, including procedural objections to opposing party filings and claims of fiduciary conflicts.
- A fee allocation under section 1003 is not a punitive sanction and does not require a finding of misconduct; it can be based on a party's responsibility for the extent of fees incurred.
- Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, but plaintiffs who oppose a fee request in writing and fail to explain how their absence from a hearing affected the outcome cannot establish a due process violation.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the broad discretion trial courts have under Probate Code section 1003 to allocate guardian ad litem fees in elder abuse and probate proceedings. It underscores that fee allocations need not be tied to findings of misconduct and can rest on a court's assessment of which party bears responsibility for the extent of fees incurred.
The opinion also illustrates the importance of preserving issues in the trial court and providing an adequate record on appeal. Appellants who fail to raise arguments below, neglect to cite the record, or omit necessary transcripts will find their claims rejected, regardless of the underlying merits.