Estate of Ringgold CA2/7

DISCUSSION

Carter purports to challenge on appeal the orders appointing McCullough as special administrator; the failure to award Carter or Evans possession of Ringgold’s files; and the refusal to order sanctions against McCullough or set an order to show cause. Carter has neither demonstrated that these rulings are appealable (see Prob. Code, § 1303, subd. (a)) nor that our prior opinion (Evans v. McCullough (Nov. 14, 2012, B232397) [nonpub. opn.]) has not settled many of the issues of which she complains. Assuming, however, that the orders are properly appealable, Carter, as a disinherited daughter, has no standing to appeal them. The probate court has determined, consistently with the text of Ringgold’s will, that the will is a pour-over will conveying the assets of her estate to

concerning the contents of the resulting orders, on April 8, 2011, the court issued an order encompassing Evans’s petitions and McCullough’s petition. (Evans v. McCullough (Nov. 14, 2012, B232397) [nonpub. opn.], at p. 3.) The court denied Evans’s first petition to probate Ringgold’s will; granted in part her second petition to probate Ringgold’s will in that the will was admitted to probate; refused…