In re Estate of Kimberly (1893) · DecisionDepot

In re Estate of Kimberly

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

California Supreme Court Feb 9, 1893 No. No. 19082Published

Before: Haven

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the validity of an adverse title claim to property cannot be litigated in a proceeding to set aside a homestead for a decedent's widow and minor children.

Issues

Whether the validity of an adverse title claim to property may be litigated in a homestead proceeding.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The question of the validity of the adverse title claimed by the contestants to an undivided interest in the property sought to be set apart as a homestead is one not proper to be litigated in this proceeding.”

Synopsis

Estates of Deceased Persons — Setting aside Homestead — Adverse Title__Upon an application to set aside a homestead for the widow and minor children of a decedent out of property claimed to belong to the estate, and inventoried as such, the question of the validity of an adverse title claimed by contestants to an undivided interest in the property sought to be set apart is one not proper to be litigated, and it is error for the court to refuse to set aside the homestead.

Id.—Litigation of Adverse Title. — Whether the contestants acquired an interest in the property described in the petition for homestead under foreclosure proceedings, can only be determined in an appropriate action brought for that purpose, and not in the proceeding to set aside the . homestead in the probate court.

De Haven, J. Appeal from an order refusing to set aside a homestead for the widow and minor children of deceased out of property claimed to belong to the estate of the deceased, and inventoried as such.

In refusing to set aside a homestead for the widow and minor children of deceased, the court erred. The question of the validity of the adverse title claimed by the contestants to an undivided interest in the property sought to be set apart as a homestead is one not proper to be litigated in this proceeding. (In re Groome, 94 Cal. 69; Estate of Burton, 63 Cal. 36.) Whether the contestants acquired, by virtue of the foreclosure proceedings referred to in the findings of the court, any interest in the land described in the petition for homestead must be determined in some appropriate action brought for the purpose of settling that question. The question is not involved here, and we express no opinion in relation to it.

Order reversed.

Fitzgerald, J., and McFarland, J., concurred.

In re Estate of Kimberly

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief