Estate of Corcofingas

California Supreme Court Jul 14, 1944 No. L. A. No. 19006Published

Before: Gibson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an appeal from a decree determining heirship was untimely because the motion to vacate the judgment was not "made" in open court within the 60-day period required by Rule 3(b) of the Rules on Appeal. Additionally, the court held that an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment is not an appealable order.

Issues

Whether an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment is appealable.
Whether a motion to vacate is "made" for purposes of Rule 3(b) upon the filing of a notice of motion or upon the oral motion in open court.
Whether the appellant's notice of appeal from the decree was filed within the time prescribed by law.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It has been consistently held in California that such language refers to the oral motion made in open court.”

“The order denying the motion to vacate being nonappealable, the purported appeal therefrom is dismissed.”

“It follows that the notice of appeal from the decree was not filed in time and, accordingly, that appeal is dismissed.”

24 Cal.2d 517 (1944) Estate of CHRIST CORCOFINGAS, Deceased. LEO T. CROWLEY, as United States Alien Property Custodian, Appellant,

CONSTANTINOS G. KALLIMANIS, Respondent.

L. A. No. 19006. Supreme Court of California. In Bank.

July 14, 1944. Charles H. Carr, United States Attorney, James L. Crawford, Ronald Walker and Clyde C. Downing, Assistant United States Attorneys, Wallace H. Walker, Special Assistant to United States Attorney General, George A. McNulty, Chief of Alien Property Unit, and J. V. McDermott, Deputy United States Alien Property Custodian, for Appellant.

Himrod & Parks for Respondent.

GIBSON, C.J.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal from a decree in a proceeding to determine heirship, and from an order denying a motion to vacate.

Christ Corcofingas, the deceased, died in Los Angeles County on April 5, 1942. His will, duly admitted to probate, made a specific bequest to a local resident, and left the rest of his estate to five brothers and sisters living in Greece. Respondent Kallimanis, executor of the will and the only heir at law living outside of Greece, filed his petition to determine [519] heirship, alleging that reciprocal rights of inheritance do not now exist between the Kingdom of Greece and the United States because of the domination of Greece by the armed forces of Germany; and that, by virtue of sections 259 and 259.1 of the Probate Code, the gifts to Greek residents lapsed and must be distributed in accordance with the laws of succession of this state.

Appellant Crowley, United States Alien Property Custodian, entered an appearance and also filed a document entitled "Vesting Order Number 1649," stating that the entire estate, except the local bequest and the amounts necessary to pay expenses, taxes and debts, had been vested in the Alien Property Custodian, pursuant to his authority under the Trading with the Enemy Act. A hearing was had and the court found that respondent was entitled to the property and that appellant had no interest therein, and rendered its decree accordingly.

Estate of Corcofingas

AI Brief

L. A. No. 19006. Supreme Court of California. In Bank.

GIBSON, C.J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief