Estate of Robinson

California Court of Appeal Feb 14, 1924 No. Civ. No. 4514.Published

Before: Conrey

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a person with a preferential right to administer an estate may withdraw a prior waiver of that right and seek the revocation of letters of administration previously granted to a non-preferential party, provided the waiver was specific to a different nominee.

Issues

Whether a person with a preferential right to administer an estate can withdraw a prior waiver of that right to seek the removal of an existing administrator.
Whether the trial court erred in failing to make specific findings on material issues when the appellant failed to specify the alleged defects.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The principal question in the case relates to the right of respondent to withdraw her renunciation and her declination to undertake the administration of this estate, and to have the administrator removed”

“It was the opinion of Judge Coffey of the superior court of San Francisco that the nomination of another as administrator simply estops the party making the nomination from afterward asserting his right to the prejudice of his own nominee.”

CONREY, P. J.

Paul Matlock, formerly administrator with the will annexed of the estate of Mary J. Robinson,

[589]

deceased, appeals from an order of the superior court revoking his letters of administration and directing that letters of administration with the will annexed be issued to Mattie A. Clark.

By order of date October 27, 1922, the will of the decedent was admitted to probate, and one L. C. Thomason was appointed administrator with the will annexed, and letters of administration to him were that day issued. Thomason filed an account and report, together with his resignation on the twentieth day of November, 1922. On the first day of December, 1922, the account and report of Thomason were approved, his resignation was accepted and Paul Matlock appointed administrator with the will annexed of said estate. Matlock duly qualified and letters of administration were issued to him on the said first day of December, 1922. He entered upon the performance of his duties and among other things caused notice to creditors to be published. The decree showing due notice to creditors was entered on the twentieth day of March, 1923. Thomason and Matlock were not related to the decedent, and Mat-lock was not interested in the estate at the time when his letters of administration were revoked. On the second day of March, 1923, Mattie A. Clark, daughter of the decedent, filed a petition praying that the letters of administration issued to Matlock be revoked and that letters of administration with the will annexed upon said estate be issued to petitioner Mattie A. Clark. This matter was heard after due notice of time and place of hearing. The case was tried upon issues raised by the petition and by the answer filed by Matlock. Thereupon the court made the order from which this appeal has been taken.

The petition for probate of the will and for appointment of Thomason as administrator with the will annexed was filed on the eleventh day of October, 1922. Together with that petition he filed a document signed by Mattie A. Clark wherein she stated that she declined to undertake the administration, waived her right to be appointed administratrix, and requested the court to appoint Thomason. When Matlock filed his petition for letters of administration after the resignation of Thomason, due notice of the application of Matlock and of the time and place of hearing the same was given to Mrs. Clark. Mrs. Clark did not appear in response to that notice. It

Estate of Robinson

AI Brief

CONREY, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief