Estate of Baldridge

DRAPEAU, J.

The petitioner is a nephew of Dora M. Baldridge. He sought to have her declared incompetent and a guardian appointed for her person and estate.

[753]

After hearing the evidence, the trial court found that Mrs. Baldridge “is competent to manage her own person and her household affairs and expenses” and denied the petition for guardianship of her person.

The court also found that “Dora M. Baldridge is incompetent by reason of old age, physical illness and infirmity rendering her unable, unassisted, properly to manage and take care of her property, and by reason thereof is likely to be deceived or imposed upon by artful and designing persons, ’ ’ and granted the petition for guardianship of her estate. The Citizens National Trust and Savings Bank of Los Angeles was appointed such guardian, and letters of guardianship issued accordingly.

Mrs. Baldridge appeals from the order adjudging her incompetent and appointing a guardian of her estate.

It is contended that the adjudication of incompeteney is contrary to the evidence and the law. This for the reason that to deprive appellant of the management and control of her own property on the basis of the evidence presented, amounts to a denial of due process.

In

Guardianship of Walters,

37 Cal.2d 239, 245 [231 P.2d 473], the Supreme Court of this state held as follows:

“In considering appellant’s contention that the evidence does not support the finding of incompeteney, we must test the evidence in the light of Probate Code, section 1460, which provides:. ‘. . . the phrase “incompetent person,” “incompetent,”- or “mentally incompetent” shall be construed to mean or refer to any person, whether insane or not, who -by reason of old age, disease, weakness of mind, or other cause, is unable, unassisted, properly to manage and take care of himself or his property, and by reason thereof is likely to be deceived or imposed upon by artful or designing persons.’

“All conflicts and any reasonable doubt as to the sufficiency of the evidence must be resolved in favor of the order. (See