Leriger v. Cassidy

California Court of Appeal Dec 21, 1928 No. Docket No. 5998.Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a petition for guardianship sufficiently establishes jurisdiction if it uses language equivalent to the statutory definition of mental incompetence, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its findings of fact or selection of a guardian.

Issues

Whether a guardianship petition must use the exact words 'mentally incompetent' to confer jurisdiction.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding of mental incompetence.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in appointing the respondent as guardian over the appellant's nominee.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In our opinion, the petition herein does use language and states facts fully equivalent to the words of the statute, and the mental incompetency to manage property required by section 1763 of the Code of Civil Procedure is sufficiently alleged”

“It is sufficient when the mental weakness exists, which makes the unfortunate one an easy prey for the designing.”

“The court has a broad discretion in the appointment of a guardian.”

BARNARD, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal from an order appointing Helen Leriger as guardian of the person and estate of her stepfather, Andrew Cassidy. The petition of the respondent stepdaughter seeks the appointment of herself as guardian of the persons and estates of both her mother, Catherine Cassidy, and her stepfather, Andrew Cassidy, who are husband and wife, and each alleged to be seventy-three years of age. The petition alleges, ‘ ‘ That both said Andrew Cassidy and Catherine Cassidy, his wife,

by Reason of old age and weakness of mind

are and each is unable, unassisted, to properly manage and take care of himself or herself and of their respective property, and by

[643]

reason thereof they are each likely to he deceived or imposed upon by artful or designing persons.” (Italics ours.) In his answer the appellant denies all the allegations of the petition going to show the necessity for the appointment of a guardian, and in addition requests the court, in the event a guardian is held to be necessary, to appoint the Crocker First Federal Trust Company of San Francisco as such guardian, in lieu of respondent. Respondent was appointed guardian of the persons and estates of both Andrew Cassidy and Catherine Cassidy, but Andrew Cassidy alone appeals.

The trial court, among other things, found “that all of the allegations contained in the petition are true,” and further, “that Andrew Cassidy is seventy-three years of age . . . and that by reason of old age and weakness of mind said Andrew Cassidy is unable unassisted to properly manage and take care of himself and/or his property and estate, and by reason thereof is likely to be deceived or imposed upon by artful or designing persons.” Three points are raised by the appellant as reasons why the order complained of should be reversed.

The first point urged is that, upon the petition as filed, the court had no jurisdiction to hear or determine the matter or appoint a guardian, for the reason that the petition absolutely fails to allege or “represent” to the court that Andrew Cassidy was “insane, or from any cause

mentally incompetent

to manage his property” as required by section 1763 of the Code of Civil Procedure, nor does it state facts fully equivalent to the words “mentally incompetent” required by said section.

Leriger v. Cassidy

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief