Estate of Madsen

California Court of Appeal Feb 27, 1939 No. Civ. 2248Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A probate court lacks jurisdiction to set aside a final decree of distribution on the grounds of extrinsic fraud; such relief must be sought through a separate proceeding in a court of general equity jurisdiction.

Issues

Does a probate court have jurisdiction to determine the validity of an assignment of estate interest that was previously incorporated into a final decree of distribution?
Can a probate court vacate its own final orders or decrees based on allegations of extrinsic fraud?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is well settled that a decree of distribution which has become final is conclusive as to the rights of those interested in the estate.”

“Consequently on a collateral attack the probate court is not vested with power to avoid its own orders or decrees which have become final on the ground that extrinsic fraud has been practiced in obtaining the order or decree.”

“we conclude that any relief to which the appellant was entitled was to be obtained through a proceeding in equity, and that the demurrer was properly sustained.”

BARNARD, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order approving and settling the final account of an executor.

Hans Madsen died intestate on March 22, 1936, leaving surviving his widow, Hanne Madsen, and one son, Martin C. Madsen, who was appointed administrator of the estate. On March 26, 1936, the widow signed an instrument purporting to assign her interest in the estate to Martin C. Madsen and directing the court to distribute the same to him. All of the property of said estate was later distributed to Martin C. Madsen by a decree of distribution filed on October 10, 1936, which decree has become final.

On November 10, 1936, Hanne Madsen, the widow, died leaving a will dated April 27, 1936, whereby she bequeathed to Helen Crow, the appellant herein, the sum of $3,100. She gave, devised and bequeathed all of the rest of her property to her son Martin C. Madsen, the respondent herein, nominating him as the executor of said will to serve without bonds. He was appointed executor of her estate and in due course filed an inventory and appraisement and, later, a final account, in both of which he set forth that no money or property of any kind had come into his hands as such executor.

[242]

The appellant filed objections to said final account alleging, among other things, that Martin C. Madsen had obtained from Hanne Madsen the purported assignment of her interest in the estate of Hans Madsen by fraudulent representation ; that this assignment was void; that the said Martin C. Madsen had wrongfully failed to account in the estate of Hanne Madsen for that part of the property belonging to the estate of Hans Madsen which should have been distributed to Hanne Madsen; and that he had converted this property to his own use. Martin C. Madsen filed a demurrer to said objections upon the ground that the probate court had no jurisdiction to pass upon the question thus raised. This demurrer was sustained and thereafter an order was entered approving and settling the final account of Martin G. Madsen as executor of the last will of Hanne Madsen, from which order this appeal was taken.

The appellant particularly relies upon

Bauer

Estate of Madsen

AI Brief

BARNARD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief