Field v. Heim

BURKE, J. In this appeal from an order appointing the Public Administrator of Orange County as administrator of the estate of Harry M. Stephens, deceased (decedent), we have concluded that under the provisions of section 422 of [821]the Probate Code1 the trial court correctly accorded prefer; ence to the public administrator over appellant Field, and that the order should be affirmed.

Decedent Stephens died intestate, survived by his mother, Olive M. Stephens, his sole heir at law. Mrs. Stephens died testate nine days later. By her will she left her estate, including her interest in decedent’s estate, to her sister Mrs. Leah Field (decedent’s aunt) and to two nieces. Mrs. Field was appointed administratrix with the will annexed of Mrs'. Stephens’ estate in Los Angeles County..Both Mrs. Field and respondent public administrator then applied for letters' of administration for decedent’s estate in Orange County. Let-' ters were granted to the public administrator and Mrs. Field appeals.

The sole issue is the application of section 422.2 The facts here parallel those of Estate of Wakefield (1902) 136 Cal. 110 [68 P. 499], in which this court held that brothers did not “succeed to the estate” of their sister within- the' meaning of the section, when their mother, as sole surviving heir of the sister, died leaving a will naming them as beneficiaries. Accordingly, they had no priority over the public administrator, who was entitled to letters of administration of the sister’s estate. In so holding this court pointed out that since the mother succeeded to the estate of her daughter, it was impossible that the brothers could thereafter succeed to it; that although the mother had actually disposed of the. daughter’s estáte by will, if the' mother had died intestate even then the brothers would not have succeeded to their sister’s estate, but instead would have been heirs at law of .their mother—not heirs at law of their sister. (Pp. 111-112 of 136 Cal.)

This approach is obviously sound, and was adhered to in Estate of Edson (1904) 143 Cal. 607 [77 P. 451], in which a' son had conveyed to his father all of his interest, as an heir in the éstate of his deceased mother. When, upon the father’s [822]death, the son sought letters of administration upon the estate of the mother, this court held that having conveyed away his interest in the mother’s estate he had lost his right to succeed to any portion thereof and his right to letters. Once more it was pointed out that although upon the father’s death the son might again come into some portion of the mother’s estate, this would be as the heir of the father and not as the heir of the mother, and any share he received would be under a decree made in the estate of the father. (See also Estate of Selb (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 788, 791 [210 P.2d 45], holding, in reliance on Wakefield and Edson, supra, that a grandson was eliminated as to priority under section 422, as “He would be entitled to succeed under his father, but not under his grandmother, Mrs. Selb, for the reason his father died after his grandmother.”)