In Re Estate of Howe (1911) · DecisionDepot

In Re Estate of Howe

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

California Supreme Court Oct 11, 1911 No. L.A. No. 2818.Published

Before: Lorigan

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A probate court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate conflicting claims to an heir's interest in an estate when the validity or effect of those claims—such as attachments, execution sales, or assignments—is in dispute. The court must distribute the estate to the heir while noting that such distribution is subject to the rights of the competing claimants, who must resolve their disputes in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Issues

Does a probate court have jurisdiction to determine the validity of conflicting claims to an heir's interest in an estate?
Does Section 1678 of the Code of Civil Procedure require a probate court to adjudicate disputed conveyances or assignments of an heir's share?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the court sitting as a court of probate simply refused for want of jurisdiction to determine the disputed and conflicting claims to the interest of Howe”

“the determination of conflicting claims to the estate of an heir or devisee or whether he has conveyed or assigned his share of the estate a ‘matter of probate.’”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

[153]

LORIGAN, J.

Edward T. Howe on July 10, 1908, was appointed administrator of the estate of the deceased, his wife, who died on June 4, 1908, the owner of certain lots of land in Los Angeles County, and leaving as her heirs at law said husband and two children.

On September 12, 1908, John A. Stanwood and others, as trustees of the Citizens’ Co-operative Company, brought suit against said Edward T. Howe for debt, attached his interest in said lots, obtained judgment against him for $3382.85, and on execution sale John A. Stanwood purchased the interest of said Howe in the property of said estate for twenty-five hundred dollars.

On May 21, 1909, the Law Credit Company, a corporation, sued said Howe in the justices’ court, obtained a judgment, and on August 6, 1909, filed a transcript thereof in the recorder’s office of Los Angeles County.

On June 20, 1909, said Howe, as administrator, under order of the superior court, sold the said real estate for something over $15,300, and the sale was confirmed.

On May 26, 1910, said Stanwood and The Law Credit Company petitioned the court in the matter of said estate for an order requiring said Howe, as administrator, to file his final account, and prayed that on settlement thereof, an order distributing all the interest in said estate belonging to said Howe, as heir, be distributed to them as his successors in interest, alleging as a basis thereof their actions brought against said Howe, their judgments obtained, and the sale of his interest in the property of deceased to Stanwood, and the lien of the Law Credit Company thereon.

On June 10, 1910, said Howe filed his final account as administrator, accompanied by a petition for distribution, and on the same day filed his demurrer and answer to the petition of Stanwood and the Law Credit Company. His demurrer was subsequently overruled. His answer asserted the invalidity of the attachment in the suit by Stanwood and others, as trustees, and the invalidity of the judgment sale on execution; denied that certain real property, the proceeds of which Stanwood asked should be distributed to him, was sold under execution, and denied that the Law Credit Company had ever obtained any lien against said real property. He further set up an assignment made on April 28, 1909, of all his interest

Related research

In his final account, as far as its items are pertinent here, he credited himself with $622.75 for services as administrator, and with $805.09 as a portion of his distributive share of the estate paid by him as administrator to himself as heir, both items being credited on September 1, 1909. A balance of $834.41 was shown in the account to which he claimed he was. entitled on distribution as a balance of his distributive share as heir, full payment to the other heirs of their full proportion of the estate being shown in the account. On September 26, 1910, after hearing on the settlement of the account and the petition for distribution and the objections of said Stanwood filed thereto leveled particularly against the items of $622.75, administrator’s fees, and $805.09, advancement to himself as heir, for which said Howe asked credit in the settlement of the account, the court made its order and decree in the matter. In the decree the court set forth that said Stanwood claimed the balance of $834.41 in the hands of the administrator, and the $805.09 which the latter sought credit for as an advancement to himself as heir, by virtue of the attachment and sheriff’s sale of the interest of said Howe in the property formerly belonging to the estate of said deceased, and that the claim of Stanwood was contested by said Howe and by Messrs. Porter & Sutton; that Stanwood and others, as trustees of the Citizens’ Co-operative Company, claimed an interest in or lien upon the $622.75 paid by the administrator to himself as adminstrator’s fees, under a garnishment served on Howe, as administrator, on March 5, 1910, which claim was contested by said Howe and by Messrs. Porter & Sutton; that said Porter & Sutton claimed an interest in all said moneys under an assignment thereof made to them on April 28, 1909, by said Howe, which claim is contested by said Stanwood and others as said trustees. The court then determined that sitting as a court of probate it had no jurisdiction to determine the validity of the claims of said Howe, John A. Stanwood, John A. Stanwood and others, as trustees, and Messrs. Porter & Sutton to the interest of said Howe in the estate of his deceased wife, and ordered that the petition of Stanwood praying for the distribution to himself of the interest of said Howe

AI Brief

Synopsis

LORIGAN, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief