Guardianship of Giambastiani

California Court of Appeal Oct 29, 1934 No. Civ. 9962Published

Before: Willis

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a de facto guardian is entitled to reimbursement for expenditures made on behalf of a ward, and such claims for reimbursement are not considered the claims of a creditor subject to exemption under the World War Veterans Act.

Issues

Whether expenditures made by a guardian prior to formal appointment were voluntary and thus ineligible for reimbursement.
Whether a de facto guardian's claim for reimbursement constitutes a creditor's claim subject to exemption under the World War Veterans Act.
Whether the probate court erred in finding the respondent acted as a de facto guardian.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A claim of a de facto guardian for expenditures on behalf of the ward, set up in his subsequent accounting, is not the claim of a creditor.”

“As quasi guardian or guardian de facto acting with bona fides, one is entitled to reasonable and proper credits for maintenance of the beneficiary and for expenditures incurred on his account.”

WILLIS, J.,

pro

tem.

The ward herein was discharged from the United States army at Camp Lewis, Washington, in January, 1918, for disability, and was at once brought back to Los Angeles, his home, by his brother, who is respondent guardian herein. Deeming his brothér incompetent to care for himself or his property, respondent took charge of him, managed and paid charges and expenses of his property affairs and supported and maintained him, chiefly out of respondent’s private resources, until respondent was regularly appointed as his guardian on October 9, 1929. During this interim the ward was owner of a one-fifth interest in a residence property and owned some stock in a feed and fuel corporation of which respondent was manager,

[642]

all in Los Angeles County, a lot in Orange County and a life and health insurance policy. On August 15, 1927, the ward was adjudged an insane person and committed to Norwalk state hospital, where he has since remained. On September 25, 1931, respondent filed his first account as guardian, showing expenditures for and on behalf of the ward over the period from January, 1918, to date of account in the sum of $11,844.78, with credits from stock on dissolution of the corporation mentioned above in 1927, from the health policy and from the United States veterans’ administration as compensation, in the sum of $525.16, aggregating the sum of $3,549.56, and leaving a balance of $8,295.22 advanced and expended by respondent. Without objection this account was approved and settled as presented, on October 19, 1931, with certain allowances made for guardian’s arid attorney’s services.

On May 27, 1932, on appellant’s petition, the probate court entered an order exempting funds received from the veterans’ administration from payment of claims of creditors. On February 16, 1933, on respondent’s petition, the court entered an order allowing him to reimburse himself for these advances out of moneys received from veterans’ administration under the provisions of the World War Veterans Act, or from any source, but only after sufficient funds coming into the estate have been used for the proper support and maintenance of the ward. On March 24, 1933, respondent filed his second account current, showing expenditures during the period in the total sum of !$645 and receipts aggregating $3,589.14, of which amount the sum of $2,645.81 was received from the veterans’ administration under said act. Such account also showed a credit of $2,278.64 against the former balance of advances. To this account appellant, under 'authority of the act above mentioned, filed objections, and after a hearing and trial the probate court overruled all objections and approved and settled the second account, on August 5, 1933. By this second account and the order settling it respondent was allowed a credit of $2,278.64 against the balance of $8,295.22 previously established as a balance of his advancements on behalf of the ward, leaving a present balance of $6,016.58 on such previous advancements, with the sum of $500 funds on hand in bank to the credit of the ward, together with a continuing income

Guardianship of Giambastiani

AI Brief

WILLIS, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief