O'Brien v. Nelson (1913) · DecisionDepot

O'Brien v. Nelson

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

California Supreme Court Jan 21, 1913 No. S.F. No. 6119.Published

Before: Shaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a probate court should not issue further letters of administration on an estate that has already been fully settled and distributed, absent the discovery of new property or other good cause.

Issues

Whether a probate court is required to issue letters of administration after a final decree of distribution has been entered for an estate.
Whether a prior decree of distribution is void if the court allegedly mischaracterized the property as community property.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“after final settlement of an estate, the court having probate jurisdiction is not bound to issue further letters of administration, and should not do so, unless there still remains property of the estate not fully disposed of”

“The implication is that there should be no issue of subsequent letters where no other property is discovered, and no good cause appears therefor.”

“In the absence of such proceedings for a review of that decree, it became final and conclusive upon all heirs, legatees, and devisees.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from an order of the Superior. Court of Santa Clara County denying a motion for a new trial of an application for letters of administration upon the estate of a deceased person. P. F. Gosbey, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

SHAW, J.

We give the title as above set forth because it so appears in the transcript and papers filed in this court. The correct title of the cause would be: “In the Matter of the Estate of Annie Nelson, Deceased.” The appeal is taken from an order denying the appellant’s motion for a new trial in the matter of his application for letters of administration upon the estate of said Annie Nelson. The application was contested by C. 0. Nelson and Annie Reardon, the matter was duly tried, findings were made and filed and the order denying said petition was entered on March 13, 1911.

Annie Nelson died intestate on February 19, 1910. The application of the appellant for letters of administration upon her estate was filed on December 2, 1910. The evidence showed that there had been a previous administration of the estate, that the same had been fully completed and distribu

[575]

tion thereof made and that the decree of distribution had become final at the time of the hearing of the contest. Annie Reardon was appointed administratrix thereof on March 19, 1910, and the decree of distribution was made on September 30, 1910. The proceedings were in all respects regular. It is admitted that the petition upon which she was appointed contained a statement of all the facts necessary to confer upon the court jurisdiction of the matter of the administration of the estate and that the required notices were duly given. It is not claimed that there remains any estate not administered. Indeed, the property described in the petition of the appellant as the property of said decedent is precisely the same as that described in the former petition of Annie Reardon and in the said decree of distribution. It is well established that, after final settlement of an estate, the court having probate jurisdiction is not bound to issue further letters of administration, and should not do so, unless there still remains property of the estate not fully disposed of, or some act to be done relating thereto which only an administrator can do.

(Murphy

Menard,

14 Tex. 67 ;

San Roman

O'Brien v. Nelson

AI Brief

Synopsis

SHAW, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief