In re Estate of Jack

California Supreme Court Dec 7, 1896 No. Sac. No. 205Published

Before: Belcher

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in vacating a guardian's sale of real property upon finding that the bid was disproportionate to the property's value.

Issues

Did the court err in determining that the bid was disproportionate to the value of the property and refusing to confirm the sale?
Was the testimony of the guardian's witness sufficient to create a substantial conflict in evidence?
Did the court err in permitting cross-examination regarding the basis of the witnesses' value estimates?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In our opinion the evidence was sufficient to justify the decision, and the court properly exercised its discretion in vacating and setting aside the said sale and ordering a new sale to be made.”

“It was for the court below to determine what were the facts? and its conclusions cannot be disturbed on appeal.”

“The question to be determined was what was the real value of the land sold, and in ascertaining that value it was proper for the court to be informed upon what grounds the estimates of value were based.”

Synopsis

Guardianship—Estate of Minor—Sale of Realty—Disproportionate Value—Order fob New Sale—Discretion—Appeal—Review of Evidence.—The sale of the real property of a minor by his guardian is governed by the same rules which govern sales of the real property of deceased persons; and when the court is satisfied from the evidence as to the value of the property, that the amount bid by the purchaser, including an iilcreased bid in court, is disproportionate to the value of the property, the court has discretion to refuse to confirm the sale, and to set it aside and order a new sale; and its conclusion from the evidence as to the facts cannot be disturbed upon appeal, upon the ground that the testimony in support thereof is incredible.

Id.—Ascertainment of Value—Cross-examination of Witnesses—Basis of Estimate.—In ascertaining the real value of the land sold, it is proper for the court to be informed upon what ground the estimates of value made by the witnesses are based, and it may permit cross-examination of real estate agents who have given low estimates of value, to show that their estimates were based upon a forced sale.

Belcher, C. Edward Roy Jack, a minor, was the owner of a tract of land in San Joaquin county, containing seventy-eight and forty-one one-hundredths acres, and Ada H. Jack was the guardian of his person and estate. On December 6, 1895, the said guardian, pursuant to due and legal proceedings theretofore had in the superior court of said county, offered for sale and sold the said tract of land to Margaret McCormick for the sum of fourteen hundred and 'fifty dollars, subject to confirmation by the court. The guardian duly made to the court a return of the sale, and stated that the same was legally made and fairly conducted, but that the sum bid was disproportionate to the value of the property sold; wherefore she asked that after a hearing [205]upon the return the court make an order rejecting said sale unless a higher offer be made at the time of such hearing. Notice of the hearing was duly given by the clerk of the court, and the matter came on regularly for consideration and decision by the court on January 3, 1896. At that time Mrs. McCormick, being present in court, filed in writing an offer increasing her bid in the sum of three dollars per acre, and thereupon asked that the said sale be confirmed. Witnesses were called and examined on both sides in relation to the value of the property, and after due consideration the court found that the sum originally bid and the increased bid were disproportionate to the value of the property sold, and that it would be for the best interests of the minor and his estate to vacate said sale and to refuse to accept said offer. Thereupon it was ordered that the sale to Mrs. McCormick be vacated and set aside, and that her offer increasing her bid in the sum of three dollars per acre be declined, and that a new sale of said premises be made by said guardian. From this order Mrs. McCormick has appealed.

The code provides that all the proceedings for the sale of property by guardians must be the same as those prescribed for the sale of the property of decedents by executors or administrators. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1789.) And as to the sale of property by executors or administrators the same code contains the following provisions:

“ Sec. 1517. All sales must be under oath reported to and confirmed by the court before the title to the property passes.”

“ Sec. 1552. The executor of administrator, after making any sale of real estate, must make a return of his proceedings to the court.....Upon the hearing the court must examine the return and witnesses in relation to the same, and if the proceedings were unfair, or the sum bid disproportionate to the value, and if it appear that a sum exceeding such bid at least ten per cent, exclusive of the expenses of a new sale, may be

In re Estate of Jack

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief