Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mohamed Adham, an accountant, hired Christi Edwards in 2006. Their working relationship developed into a business partnership and a father-daughter-type relationship. Mohamed invested part of Edwards’s compensation in his TD Ameritrade account. In a 2015 writing, he stated that Edwards had contributed to the account, that he was leaving her a $125,000 gain, and that she could take the money whenever she decided. After Mohamed’s health declined, he wound down his accounting practice and handed it to Edwards around September 2020.
In November 2021, Edwards changed the address on Mohamed’s individual retirement account from his home to her home. Two checks for required minimum distributions, totaling $12,595.67, were sent to her address in December 2021 and February 2022. Edwards endorsed them with Mohamed’s business stamp and deposited them into his business checking account. During roughly the same period, she issued $126,000 from that account to herself, Richard Day, her mother, and her credit card balance.
After Dina Adham became temporary conservator in April 2023, she petitioned on the estate’s behalf to recover the $12,595.67 from Edwards and Day and sought a penalty for wrongful taking. Edwards and Day responded that Mohamed had consented to the withdrawals. Following a one-day bench trial on June 4, 2025, the probate court denied the petition on July 8, 2025. It found that Edwards and Day took the money but that Dina had not proved the taking was unauthorized or wrongful. The court also denied a new-trial motion based on exclusion of neuropsychologist Stacey Wood’s testimony.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal reviewed the exclusion of expert testimony for abuse of discretion and required a reasonably probable more favorable result before reversing for evidentiary error. It rejected respondents’ forfeiture argument because Dina had proffered the substance of Wood’s testimony and the probate court had precluded it. Dina’s passing complaint about a five-minute cross-examination limit did not succeed: the record did not support the asserted limit, showed no trial objection, and contained only cursory appellate briefing.
The court first held that excluding Wood’s testimony was not erroneous. As the petitioner under Probate Code section 850, Dina had to establish the estate’s claim and that Edwards’s possession was unauthorized; double damages under section 859 additionally required wrongful possession. Wood’s proposed opinion that Mohamed lacked capacity and was susceptible to undue influence beginning in April 2019 could address contemporaneous authorization in 2021 and 2022. It did not address whether Mohamed had capacity to authorize the transfer before 2019. The court identified authorization in 2015 or earlier as the sole factually disputed trial question, making the proposed testimony irrelevant to that dispute. It alternatively held that any marginal relevance was substantially outweighed by undue consumption of time under Evidence Code section 352 at the one-day trial.
Second, the court held any assumed error harmless because the probate court excluded Wood before Edwards testified that authorization occurred before 2019. Dina offered no evidence refuting that earlier authorization, which she acknowledged would validate the later withdrawals. Where the proven facts equally supported authorized and unauthorized takings, the party bearing the burden of proof lost. The court distinguished decisions treating exclusion of all evidence supporting a claim or essential expert testimony as reversible per se: Dina herself testified, and Wood’s testimony was at most marginally relevant rather than essential. The order was affirmed, with costs on appeal awarded to Edwards and Day.
Key Takeaways
- Expert evidence of a conservatee’s incapacity during later transactions may not resolve the disputed issue if valid authorization could have been given while the conservatee still had capacity.
- A petitioner seeking recovery of estate property under Probate Code section 850 must prove that the respondent’s possession was unauthorized, and a section 859 double-damages claim additionally requires wrongful possession.
- The appellate court rejected forfeiture of the expert-testimony issue because the conservator proffered the testimony’s substance and the probate court expressly precluded it.
- Even an assumed error in excluding the expert was not prejudicial because the conservator offered no evidence to refute testimony that authorization had been granted in or before 2015.
- The reversible-per-se authorities concerning exclusion of all claim evidence or essential expert testimony did not apply because the conservator testified and the excluded opinion had, at most, marginal relevance.
Why It Matters
The decision ties both relevance and prejudice to the precise factual dispute at trial. Evidence that a person lacked capacity when money was withdrawn does not necessarily establish that an earlier authorization was invalid, particularly when the petitioner bears the burden of disproving authorization.
The unpublished opinion also separates preservation from prejudice: a sufficient evidentiary proffer preserved the issue, but that did not overcome the absence of evidence contradicting the claimed earlier authorization. The court left no merits issue unresolved, affirming the probate order and awarding appellate costs to Edwards and Day.