Stein v. Hubbard

[605]

Opinion

THE COURT.

In a judgment entered in an action to establish paternity, Simon Stein was declared to be the father of Nathan Stein, hereinafter referred to as appellant, and ordered to make certain monthly payments for the support of appellant. Simon Stein died thereafter.

Valerie Lynn, the mother and guardian of Nathan Stein, filed an action against the estate of Simon Stein on her own behalf and on behalf of Nathan Stein, based upon a rejected claim. The appeal herein is from that part of a judgment rendered on the fourth cause of action in favor of the executor of the will of Simon Stein, which denied any recovery for future support for Nathan Stein.

The trial court denied appellant’s claim against the estate for future support, concluding that the decedent’s support obligation was discharged through the residual clause of his will, which ran to the benefit of appellant and the decedent’s other child, Appellant contends the court erred in reaching this conclusion without also finding that the estate was sufficient to discharge the obligation in this manner, and we agree.

The decedent’s obligation to support appellant survived his death, and became a charge upon his estate.

(Stebbins

v.

Imerman

(1971) 21 Cal. App.3d 942, 945 [98 Cal.Rptr. 865].) This obligation can be discharged by means other than a judgment creditor’s claim against the estate.

(Taylor

v.

George

(1949) 34 Cal.2d 552 [212 P.2d 505];

Estate of Schumacher

(1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 146 [95 Cal.Rptr. 572].) However, the alternative means of discharging the support obligation must be sufficient to actually discharge tire obligation. (See, e.g.,

Taylor v. George, supra,