Braun v. Brown

California Supreme Court Mar 9, 1939 No. L. A. 16889Published

Before: Curtis

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a motion to intervene filed after judgment is untimely and that an unsuccessful intervener who is not a party to the record lacks standing to appeal the underlying judgment. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of intervention, dismissed the intervener's appeal from the judgment, and recalled the writ of supersedeas.

Issues

Whether a motion to intervene filed after the entry of judgment is timely.
Whether an unsuccessful intervener who is not a party to the record has the right to appeal the final judgment.

Disposition. Affirmed in part, dismissed in part, and writ recalled.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The order of the trial court denying the proposed intervener’s motion to intervene was proper by reason of the fact that the application to intervene came too late.”

“It has been held that the only appeal open to an unsuccessful intervener is from the order denying his motion to intervene and he is not entitled to appeal from the judgment rendered in the action.”

“It has been settled as a rule of practice by a long series of decisions that only a party to the record can appeal.”

CURTIS, J.

This is a controversy over $19,703.11 worth of personal property left by Julius H. Schmidt, who died intestate in Los Angeles on February 11, 1937. Three persons are interested: the public administrator, as administrator of the estate, to whom the property was delivered and who still

[132]

has it in his possession; Raymond G. Assman, resident of Oregon, a nephew of decedent who claims the property as decedent’s sole heir; and Teresa A. Braun, who claims the property as a gift

causa mortis

from decedent.

Teresa A. Braun brought an action against the public administrator for claim and delivery, to quiet title, and for conversion. On April 21, 1938, she had judgment as prayed, decreeing her ownership of the property and ordering the public administrator to deliver it to her forthwith. The public administrator promptly moved for a new trial. Raymond G. Assman joined in the motion and at the same time petitioned for leave to intervene in the action. Plaintiff opposed the intervention and the court, after hearing the matter, denied a new trial, and also denied the petition for intervention. The unsuccessful intervener then appealed from the order denying his motion to intervene. The public administrator appealed from the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff, Teresa A. Braun, and the unsuccessful intervener joined with said public administrator in his appeal from said judgment. By stipulation the two appeals from the judgment were consolidated. There are, therefore, three appeals now pending; the appeal of the public administrator from the judgment in favor of plaintiff, the appeal of the proposed intervener 'from the order denying his motion to intervene upon the motion for a new trial, and the appeal of the unsuccessful intervener from the judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the public administrator. Plaintiff now moves to dismiss the appeal of the proposed intervener from the order denying his motion to intervene or to affirm the judgment and order denying him leave to intervene, and to dismiss his appeal from the judgment in favor of plaintiff. Contemporaneously with said motion to dismiss, the plaintiff has moved this court to recall the writ of

supersedeas

Braun v. Brown

AI Brief

CURTIS, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief