Crane v. Superior Court (1919) · DecisionDepot

Crane v. Superior Court

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Jul 19, 1919 No. Civ. No. 3064.Published

Before: Shaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to vacate its prior orders settling an estate account and distributing assets because there was no evidence of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or fraud to justify relief under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issues

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to vacate orders settling an estate account and distributing assets without a showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or fraud.

Disposition. annulled

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There is no showing whatsoever of any facts which would constitute inadvertence.”

“The law does not authorize such action.”

“the court had no power to set aside and vacate the orders, save and except under the provisions of section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, authorizing relief from orders made through a party’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect”

Synopsis

PROCEEDING- in Certiorari to review the action of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and James C. Rives, Judge thereof, in vacating orders made settling a final account, decreeing distribution of the estate, and discharging the administratrix. Orders annulled.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

SHAW, J.

By this application petitioner asks that upon a writ of

certiorari

we set aside and annul the action of the court in vacating orders made for the distribution of the estate of a deceased person and discharge of the administratrix.

The facts upon which the action of the court was based are as follows: The petitioner, Lida S. Crane, was administratrix of the estate of James E. Crane, deceased, and up to July 8, 1918, Robert L. Hubbard and N. B. Baehtell represented her as attorneys. On said date Thomas K. Case was, subject to the right of Hubbard and Baehtell to an

[287]

allowance of attorneys’ fees for services rendered, substituted as attorney, and as such thereafter appeared for the administratrix. On July 30, 1918, the administratrix filed her first and final account, accompanied by a petition for an order distributing the estate to herself as sole heir, the hearing of which, after due notice given, was had on August 13, 1918, at which time an order was made settling the account and the estate ordered distributed to petitioner. On August 29, 1918, Hubbard and Baehtell filed with the clerk of the court an application to have their fees as attorneys for the administratrix fixed and allowed by the court. Thereafter, and without any receipt having been filed showing the estate had been distributed, the court on August 31st made an order discharging the administratrix. No hearing of the application to fix and allow the fees of Hubbard and Baehtell was had. Thereafter, on October 21, 1918, the court, upon motion of Hubbard and Baehtell, entered an order vacating the order discharging the administratrix; and on February 3, 1919, Hubbard and Baehtell served upon the administratrix a notice of motion for orders vacating the orders approving the final account and decree of distribution. Said motion was made on February 10, 1919, and the hearing continued from said date to February 20, 1919, at which time it was heard, and on May 6, 1919, the court made findings to the effect that said orders settling the final account and decreeing distribution of the estate were inadvertently made and under a misapprehension of the court that all claims against the estate had been paid, for which reason it was ordered that said orders and each of them be vacated, annulled and set aside.

Crane v. Superior Court

AI Brief

Synopsis

SHAW, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief