Blodgett v. Haddock

[18]

MOORE, P. J.

The question for decision is whether an order appointing a receiver for the corpus of a testamentary-trust estate which has reverted to the heirs of the testator upon the death of the sole beneficiary is valid.

In his lifetime Francis R. Fencil bequeathed ten-elevenths of the residue of his estate to 10 designated children. The remaining one-eleventh he bequeathed in trust to his executors as trustees for his “daughter, Anna M. Haddock, so long as she lives. At her death, the said trust fund . . . shall be equally divided among my remaining children or the issue of deceased children.” Pursuant to said bequest the trustees with the consent of Anna about August 1, 1940, acquired Lot 309, Tract 3477, Los Angeles County, made improvements thereon for which they used $7,000 which constituted the one-eleventh of the residue. After the decease of Anna, October 2,1945, her surviving husband, Frank D. Haddock, occupied one of the dwelling units on Lot 309 and collected rentals from the three tenants in possession of the other three units, aggregating $160 per month. Frank is without means or assets to pay any judgment for rentals; has no income other than from the trust property. So finding, the trial court made the order appointing a receiver, from which comes this appeal.

There is no error in the order appointing the receiver or in the proceedings therefor. While such appointment is not proper in an ejectment or other strictly legal action the rights of adverse occupants of land which is the subject of an action in partition may be tried and determined in such action.

(Middlecoff

v.

Cronise,

155 Cal. 185, 191 [100 P. 232, 17 Ann.Cas. 1159];

Adams

v.

Hopkins,

144 Cal. 19, 29 [77 P. 712].) The superior court has jurisdiction to appoint a receiver as an ancillary remedy in an action for partition of real property among tenants in common and should do so when the circumstances require it.