Filed 1/28/26 Estate of Turner CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

Estate of BETTY TURNER, Deceased.

VICTOR R. TZANKOV,

E083206

Petitioner and Appellant, (Super.Ct.No. PROSB2200416) v.

OPINION

KELLY J. TURNER et al.,

Objectors and Respondents.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michelle H.

Gilleece, Judge. Affirmed.

Victor R. Tzankov, in pro. per., for Petitioner and Appellant.

Law Offices of Marc E. Grossman, Marc E. Grossman and James T. Lee for

Objectors and Respondents.

1 In a spousal property petition, petitioner and appellant Victor R. Tzankov

(Tzankov) alleged he is the surviving spouse of Betty Turner (Decedent), and he sought

to have Decedent’s property pass to him without the administration of probate.1 (Prob.

Code, § 13650, subd. (a).) Objectors and respondents Kendall Turner and Kelly Turner

(collectively, Sons), who are Decedent’s sons, asserted that Tzankov was never

Decedent’s spouse. The probate court granted Sons’ motion for judgment denying

Tzankov’s spousal property petition.2 Relatedly, the probate court denied Tzankov’s

motion for entry of Sons’ default on the spousal property petition.

Tzankov raises 17 issues on appeal. As explained post, 11 of the issues are

beyond the scope of this appeal. We address the remaining six issues on the merits.

First, Tzankov contends the probate court erred by failing to state its reasons for

denying his spousal property petition. Second, Tzankov contends the probate court

erred by converting the hearing on his spousal property petition into a trial “without

adequate notice or opportunity for preparation.” Third, Tzankov accuses the probate

1 This court previously addressed the related case of K.J.T. v. Tzankov (June 17, 2022, E075938) [nonpublished opinion].

2 The probate court referred to its action as granting Sons’ motion for nonsuit. The probate court remarked that “nonsuit” was not the correct word in the probate setting but could not recall the appropriate word. The probate court said, “I don’t remember what it’s called in probate. There’s a different name for it in the Code, but it’s basically the same thing, that there’s not enough evidence to proceed with the petition at this point in time any further.” Nonsuit is a term that applies to a jury trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581c, subd. (a); Roth v. Parker (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 542, 549.) We believe the term the probate court was trying to recall is “a motion for judgment,” which applies to a bench trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 631.8, subd. (a); Hillman v. Stults (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 848, 881.)

2 court of bias. Fourth, Tzankov asserts the probate court denied him a fair hearing by

failing to provide him an interpreter. Fifth, Tzankov contends the probate court erred by

scheduling three motions to be heard at the same time as the evidentiary hearing on the

spousal property petition. Sixth, Tzankov asserts the probate court erred by denying his

motion for entry of Sons’ default on his spousal property petition. We affirm.3

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. PRETRIAL

1. SONS’ EVIDENCE OF DECEDENT’S MARRIAGE TO THEIR

FATHER

Sons asserted Decedent was married to Sons’ father, Gilbert Ray Turner (Father),

from June 24, 1956, until she died in May 2021. In March 2020, in a small claims case,

Decedent signed an affidavit that reads in part, “I am a resident of California and have

been legally married to, but living separately from my husband, Gilbert R. Turner. We

were married on 6/24/1956. We have never filed for a legal separation or divorce. I am

not married to Victor R. Tzankov.”

For tax years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, and 2021 Decedent filed her

taxes as “Married filing separately,” and named her spouse as Father. Father was still

alive when Decedent died. Father was a conservatee; his public guardian asserted, on

information and belief, that Father was married to Decedent at the time of her death.

3 Tzankov’s April 30, 2025, request for judicial notice is denied.

3 2. TZANKOV’S PURPORTED MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE

In a “request for relief” pertaining to his spousal property petition, Tzankov

asserted that he lived with Decedent from 2005 to 2012, and they were married from

2012 until she died in 2021. As an exhibit to a motion to dismiss Sons’ probate petition,

Tzankov provided a copy of a purported marriage certificate for himself and Decedent

dated December 5, 2012 (the purported marriage certificate). The purported marriage

certificate bears the license number D595649 and was signed by the Most Reverend

Peter W. Goodrich in Ontario, Canada.

Sons provided the declaration of Archbishop and Primate of the Independent

Anglican Church Canada Synod 1934 Peter W. Goodrich (the Archbishop) who looked

through his records and found nothing indicating he performed a wedding for Tzankov

and Decedent in 2012. In searching his records, the Archbishop found that he or an

officiant associated with him recorded a marriage between Tzankov and a person by the

last name Kohutiak on December 5, 1994. The license number for that 1994 marriage

was D095648. The Archbishop further “found that the prefix D was used [for licenses]

until the end of 1999, then the prefix ‘E’ became in use. No weddings performed in

Ontario in 2012 would have had a serial number starting with the letter ‘D’.” The

Archbishop went on to detail other problems with the marriage license, such as cursive

being used rather than block letters, the full address of the chapel not being included,

that he was recovering from two strokes in 2012 and likely would not have performed a

wedding at that time, and the church being misidentified as “Anglican Rite,” when the

4 Archbishop would have written “IND. ANGLICAN” for the Independent Anglican

Church.

At Sons’ request, the Office of the Registrar General for Ontario searched for a

marriage registration between Tzankov and Decedent between 2010 and 2014 and

found nothing.

B. TRIAL

While testifying at trial, Tzankov moved to have the purported marriage

certificate admitted into evidence. Sons objected to the purported marriage certificate

being admitted on the basis that it had not been authenticated. The probate court asked

Tzankov, “[D]o you have a certified copy of this, or do you have a custodian of records

declaration indicating that it’s a true copy of the certificate of marriage?” Tzankov

replied, “No. Never been requested.” The court asked Tzankov if he had “any way to

authenticate this [purported] certificate of marriage?” Tzankov replied, “I’ll try. But I

cannot do it now.” The trial court sustained the objection and did not admit the

purported marriage certificate into evidence.

After Tzankov completed his direct examination and rested, Sons made a motion

for judgment asserting Tzankov failed to meet his burden of proof. The probate court

granted the motion concluding “there’s not enough evidence to proceed with the

petition,” and explaining, “I have no proof that’s been admitted into evidence that . . .

Tzankov and [Decedent] were married at the time of her death.” The trial court denied

Tzankov’s spousal property petition.

5

DISCUSSION

A. EXPLANATION FOR ITS RULING

Tzankov contends the probate court erred by failing to state its reasons for

denying his spousal property petition. “Pursuant to Probate Code section 13650, the

surviving spouse may file a spousal property petition with the probate court to confirm

the surviving spouse’s interest in property that belongs to the surviving spouse and that

passes to the surviving spouse without [traditional] probate procedures.” (Estate of

Bonanno (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 7, 18.) When denying Tzankov’s spousal property

petition, the probate court explained that Tzankov failed to prove that he was

Decedent’s spouse, which is a necessary element of a spousal property petition (Prob.

Code, § 13650, subd. (a)). Thus, the probate court explained its reason for denying

Tzankov’s petition.

B. NOTICE

1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Tzankov filed his spousal property petition on May 25, 2023. The petition was

on calendar for October 19, 2023, and Tzankov was present in court. The probate court

began the hearing by saying, “On the spousal property petition that was filed by Mr.

Tzankov, I’m still missing notice. It wasn’t filed, Mr. Tzankov. So do you have

notice—proof of service, and notice? And then I also need attachment number 11 from

the petition wasn’t attached. I need a copy of the marriage certificate. And I need

allegations that—factual allegations to support the requested relief that the property was

6 community property, or acquired during a valid marriage. So those are all items that I

need to be submitted before the Court can proceed on this petition.”

Tzankov said the purported marriage certificate was attached as an exhibit to his

motion to dismiss Sons’ probate petition. Sons argued that the purported marriage

certificate was forged. The probate court said it would set the matter for an evidentiary

hearing to make a “decision based on whatever evidence [Sons] and Mr. Tzankov were

able to provide.” The hearing was scheduled for December 2023.

On December 21, 2023, during the hearing on the spousal property petition, Sons

sought to have the probate court deny the spousal property petition. The probate court

said it would “set it for trial” on January 25, 2024, because Tzankov had not presented

sufficient evidence and the court wanted to give him another opportunity to meet his

evidentiary burden. The probate court explained to Tzankov, “[I]t is your burden to

prove the spousal property petition elements and based on the information that you have

submitted to the Court, I don’t have sufficient evidence today to grant your petition. So

I’m giving you an opportunity to augment your evidence.” The probate court set the

evidentiary hearing for January 25, 2024.

On January 25, 2024, the probate court held the evidentiary hearing on

Tzankov’s spousal property petition and denied the petition due to Tzankov’s failure to

prove he was married to Decedent.

2. ANALYSIS

Tzankov contends the probate court erred by converting the hearing on his

spousal property petition into a trial “without adequate notice or opportunity for

7 preparation.” On October 19, 2023, in open court, with Tzankov present, Sons argued

that Tzankov’s purported marriage certificate was forged. In December 2023, the

probate court told Tzankov that his evidence was insufficient and he was being given an

opportunity to present more evidence to support his petition on January 25, 2024. Thus,

Tzankov was notified that on January 25, 2024, he would need to provide evidence

proving he was married to Decedent in order to support his petition. Tzankov’s right to

notice was not violated.

C. JUDICIAL BIAS

Tzankov contends the probate court, in particular the Honorable Michelle

Gilleece, was biased against Tzankov as demonstrated by her granting of continuances

and transferring the case to other judges or commissioners. There is no indication that

Tzankov filed an objection to Judge Gilleece hearing the case in the probate court.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 170.3, subd. (c)(1).) Nevertheless, we will address this issue. (See

Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1218 [failure to

preserve judicial bias claim].)

The record reflects no bias against Tzankov. To the contrary, Judge Gilleece

went above and beyond to provide Tzankov ample opportunities to prove his case. For

example, during the hearing on December 21, 2023, rather than deny Tzankov’s petition

due to a lack of evidence, the court continued the hearing to January 25, 2024 to give

Tzankov another opportunity to prove his case. Given the patience that Judge Gilleece

showed to Tzankov in providing him an extra opportunity to present sufficient evidence,

we are not persuaded that she was biased against him.

8

D. TRANSLATOR

Tzankov asserts the probate court denied him a fair hearing by failing to provide

him with an interpreter. Tzankov does not indicate if he requested an interpreter in the

probate court. Tzankov does not pinpoint where in the record he was unable to

understand the proceedings due to his alleged unfamiliarity with English. Because it

does not appear that an interpreter was requested or required, error has not been

demonstrated. (Forman v. Goldberg (1941) 42 Cal.App.2d 308, 316 [No error in failing

to appoint an interpreter when one was not requested and the witnesses appeared to

understand English.]; see generally Evid. Code, § 752, subd. (b)(2) [In civil cases, the

cost of an interpreter shall be apportioned among the parties.].)

E. SCHEDULING OF MOTIONS AND TRIAL

1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

a. Motion to Dismiss

On March 24, 2022, Tzankov filed a petition for probate of Decedent’s will and

requested that he be appointed executor. On May 13, 2022, Sons filed their petition for

probate of Decedent’s will and requested that they be appointed as executors. On

October 18, 2023, Tzankov filed a motion to dismiss Sons’ probate petition. The

purported marriage certificate was attached to his motion as an exhibit.

b. Motion for Entry of Default

Tzankov’s spousal property petition was filed on May 25, 2023. Sons filed their

opposition to the petition on July 14, 2023, asserting that Tzankov was never married to

Decedent. At the hearing on October 19, 2023, the probate court told Tzankov that he

9 needed to provide “factual allegations to support the requested relief that the property

was community property, or acquired during a valid marriage.” The probate court

ordered Tzankov to file his amendments by November 20, 2023. Per the reporter’s

transcript, the probate court ordered Sons to file any response by December 7, 2023.

However, per the minute order, the probate court ordered Sons to file any response by

December 2, 2023, which was a Saturday.4

On November 17, 2023, Tzankov filed amendments to his spousal property

petition that included pages of factual allegations. On Monday, December 4, 2023,

Sons filed their reply to the amendments, again arguing that Tzankov was never married

to Decedent. On January 2, 2024, Tzankov moved for Sons’ default to be entered on

the spousal property petition because Sons failed to respond to Tzankov’s amendments

by the December 2, 2023, deadline set forth in the minute order.

c. Motion for Sanctions

On January 2, 2024, Tzankov filed a motion for $100,000 in sanctions against

Sons’ attorneys. The motion listed various actions that Tzankov alleged were made in

bad faith, such as requesting continuances and filing allegedly frivolous declarations.

d. January 25, 2024, Hearing

The motion to dismiss, motion for default, motion for sanctions, and spousal

property petition were all scheduled for a half-day hearing on the afternoon of January

4 We take judicial notice of the fact that December 2, 2023, was a Saturday and December 4, 2023, was a Monday. (Evid. Code, § 451, subd. (f) [facts not reasonably subject to dispute].)

10 25, 2024. The hearing began at 1:38 p.m. The probate court denied the motion to

dismiss at 1:54 p.m., denied the motion for entry of default at 1:56 p.m., and denied the

motion for sanctions at 1:58 p.m. At 2:10 p.m., Tzankov began presenting his argument

and testimony on the spousal property petition.

When the probate court said it sustained Sons’ objection to the purported

marriage certificate and would not admit it into evidence, Tzankov responded, “Any

more hurdle[s] I have to overcome?” The probate court replied, “I don’t know what

else you have to present.” At that point, Tzankov rested. At 3:45 p.m., immediately

after Tzankov rested, Sons made their motion for judgment. The probate court granted

the motion at 4:01 p.m.

2. ANALYSIS

Tzankov contends the probate court erred by scheduling three motions to be

heard at the same time as the evidentiary hearing on the spousal property petition

because that schedule left insufficient time for the evidentiary hearing on the petition.

The record reflects that Tzankov had ample time to present his case in support of his

spousal property petition. The probate court did not cut-off Tzankov’s presentation of

evidence, rather, Tzankov chose to rest his case. We see no error resulting from the

schedule.

D. DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Tzankov asserts the probate court erred by denying his motion for entry of Sons’

default on his spousal property petition. As set forth ante, there is a discrepancy

between the reporter’s transcript and the clerk’s minute order as to when Sons’ response

11 was due. Tzankov is using the shorter deadline from the minute order, which was

Saturday, December 2, 2023. For the sake of addressing Tzankov’s argument, we will

assume Saturday, December 2, 2023, was the correct deadline.

In court, Saturdays are considered holidays, so Sons’ response was timely filed

on the following Monday. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 12a, subd. (a), 12b; Montgomery v.

Norman (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 855, 857-858.) There was no basis for entering Sons’

default. The probate court did not err.

E. ISSUES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS APPEAL

1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 5, 2024, Tzankov filed a notice of appeal indicating that he was

appealing from an unidentified order or judgment. Approximately one week later,

Tzankov filed his civil case information statement with five attachments, which were all

copies of the probate court’s January 25, 2024, minute order. Attachment-A was titled

for the denial of Tzankov’s motion for sanctions. Attachment-B was titled for the

denial of Tzankov’s motion for entry of Sons’ default on the spousal property petition.

Attachment-C was titled for the denial of Tzankov’s spousal property petition.

Attachment-D was titled for the denial of Tzankov’s motion to dismiss Sons’ probate

petition. Attachment-E was titled for the scheduling of a trial setting conference

pertaining to Sons’ and Tzankov’s competing petitions for probate.

12 This court dismissed Tzankov’s appeal on the basis that none of the rulings

constituted appealable orders. Tzankov moved to have his appeal reinstated. This court

reinstated Tzankov’s appeal as to Attachments B and C—the denial of his motion for

default on the spousal property petition and the denial of the spousal property petition.

2. ANALYSIS

“ ‘Our jurisdiction on appeal is limited in scope to the notice of appeal and the

judgment or order appealed from.’ ” (Faunce v. Cate (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 166,

170.) In the instant case, we are limited to reviewing the probate court’s rulings

(1) denying Tzankov’s motion for default on the spousal property petition, and

(2) denying Tzankov’s spousal property petition.

Tzankov raises a variety of issues that are beyond the scope of our review.

Tzankov contends that (1) Sons “unlawfully transferr[ed] property without proper

probate proceedings”;; (2) Tzankov is the owner of Decedent’s real property through

adverse possession; (3) Sons have been unjustly enriched by Tzankov’s work improving

Decedent’s real property; (4) an advisory opinion is needed “regarding the appealability

of pre-judgment sanctions”; (5) the probate court lacked jurisdiction over Sons’ probate

petition; (6) Sons lacked standing to petition for probate of Decedent’s will; (7)

Tzankov was not given proper notice of Sons’ petition for probate of Decedent’s will;

(8) the will presented in Sons’ petition for probate is invalid; (9) Sons failed to file a

timely petition for probate; (10) a 2022 minute order in a related case (pertaining to a

temporary order of protection) wrongly reflects that Tzankov was telephonically present

13 at the hearing; and (11) during a hearing in August 2022, the trial court admitted a letter

and canceled check that were “obtained through an unlawful search and seizure.”

Because those 11 issues are beyond the scope of the probate court denying the

spousal property petition and the related motion for default, we cannot review them in

this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The orders denying the spousal property petition and the motion for default are

affirmed. Respondents, Kelly J. Turner and Kendall F. Turner, are awarded their costs

on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1).)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER

J.

We concur:

McKINSTER Acting P. J.

CODRINGTON

J.

14