Estate of Inman

California Court of Appeal Mar 7, 1957 No. Civ. 17032Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the decree determining heirship regarding the real property, bonds, ring, and lien claims, but reversed the determination that the automobile was part of the decedent's estate, finding it to be community property.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in classifying various assets as the decedent's separate property versus community property.
Whether the husband was entitled to a lien for reimbursement for improvements made to the decedent's separate property using community funds.
Whether the trial court properly rejected the husband's testimony regarding the character of the property.

Disposition. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court could reject appellant’s testimony on which he relies, under the rule that the trier of facts may reject the testimony even of an uncontradicted witness”

“Insofar as the decree adjudged an interest of the brother and sisters of decedent in the LaSalle automobile which forms part of the estate, it is reversed, in all other respects it is affirmed”

THE COURT.

This is an appeal from a decree determining heirship. Lillian Inman died intestate and without issue on July 30, 1954, leaving surviving her and entitled to succession her husband, one brother and two sisters. It was the position of the brother and sisters that all the estate was the separate property of decedent and that each of them under section 223 of the Probate Code was entitled to one-sixth, and the husband to one-half of it all, whereas it was the position of the husband that all the estate, with the exception of a piece of real property at 6233 Leona Street in Oakland, hereinafter called the Leona Street property, acquired by decedent before her marriage, was community property to which he alone was entitled. With respect to the Leona Street property he claimed over and above his undivided one-half portion a lien for the reimbursement of $4,000 allegedly expended by him from community funds in the investment and improvement of said property. The court recognized the one-sixth interest of the brother and each sister in all the

[954]

estate except the furniture and furnishings contained in the inventory, as to which the sole ownership of the husband was recognized and did not grant the husband the lien for reimbursement claimed with respect to the Leona Street property. The husband appeals.

The items still disputed on appeal are the following:

(a) A diamond ring, appraised at $175, which the mother of the husband had left to him at her death.

(b) A 1940 LaSalle automobile appraised at $120, registered in the name of Lillian Grundy, decedent’s maiden name, when they bought it in 1940.

(c) A piece of real property at 240 MacArthur Boulevard in Oakland appraised at $18,500, acquired in 1942 by a deed from the former owners to Lillian Grundy Inman, a married woman, as her separate property, with a statement in the body of the deed that Mr. Inman joins in the deed in order that it may be her separate property. It will herein further be referred to as the MacArthur property.

(d) Seven United States Savings Bonds, Series G, in the amount of $1,000 each, appraised at $7,000, stipulated to have all been purchased on May 24, 1947, in the name of Mrs. Lillian Grundy Inman.

Estate of Inman

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief