AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the estate of Josephine A.G. Stevens, deceased. Elisa McDowell, the petitioner-appellee, was involved in a legal dispute against Louella Galbiso, Josephine (Galbiso) Martinez, Mary Jane Galbiso, and Sydney (Isabel Galbiso) Aschert, the respondents-appellants, concerning the estate. Specific events leading to the case are not detailed in the provided text.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee: The arguments and pieces of evidence presented by the appellee are not explicitly detailed but were persuasive enough to support the district court's decision (para 4).
• Appellants: The appellants, despite procedural missteps and excessive filings, appealed the district court's orders. Specific arguments made by the appellants are not detailed in the provided text (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the appellants' appeals from the four orders entered on May 16, 2012, were timely.
• Whether the appellants' appeal from the June 26, 2012, order was timely and, if so, whether the district court erred or abused its discretion in its determinations contained in the June 26, 2012, order.

Disposition

• The appeals from the orders entered on May 16, 2012, are dismissed as untimely (para 2).
• The district court’s order entered on June 26, 2012, is affirmed (para 5).

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, J. (Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge, and Timothy L. Garcia, Judge, concurring):
  The Court dismissed the appeals from the May 16, 2012, orders due to their untimeliness, emphasizing the appellants' failure to adhere to procedural rules and their excessive and vexatious filings (para 2). Despite the appeal from the June 26, 2012, order being one day late, the Court chose to address it, giving the appellants the benefit of the doubt due to the "cloudy" nature of the issue regarding timeliness. The Court found no error or abuse of discretion in the district court's June 26, 2012, order, siding with the arguments and authorities presented in the appellee's answer brief (paras 3-4).