In re Burdick's Estate

California Supreme Court Apr 2, 1895 No. No. 15,869Published

Before: Temple

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the surviving wife acquires her interest in community property upon the death of her husband by inheritance, and that the probate court has jurisdiction to distribute such property. The court further held that the trustees lacked standing to appeal as they were not heirs, legatees, or devisees and were not aggrieved by the decree.

Issues

Does the probate court have jurisdiction to determine and distribute community property upon the death of a husband?
Does a surviving wife acquire her interest in community property by inheritance?
Do trustees who are not named in a will have standing to appeal a decree of distribution?

Disposition. The appeal of the trustees is dismissed, and the decree is affirmed as to the other appellant.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The statute therefore indicates very plainly that the wife acquires her right of absolute property in one-half of the community property, upon the death of her husband, by inheritance.”

“From what has already been said, it is quite obvious that the appeal of the trustees must be dismissed. They are not named in the will, could not be heirs, and have presented no claim against the estate.”

Synopsis

Executors—Appeal from Final Settlement.—An executor, who has appealed from all of a decree made in the final settlement and distribution of the estate, except that part settling such executor’s account with the estate, cannot, on such appeal, object that the funds in his hands were found to be community property, and distributed accordingly.

Executors—Appeal.—A Distribution of a Part of a Devised Estate to trustees, at the special request of the sole devisee, will not be declared void on appeal because the record fails to show that such trustees established a legal claim to the property.

Executors—Distribution.—The Probate Court has Jurisdiction to declare certain property devised to testator’s son to be community property, and to distribute it to the wife, who is not a legatee or devisee.

Community Property—Succession.—The Additional Eight Acquired in community property by either the husband or the wife upon the death of the other is acquired by inheritance.

Executors—Who may Appeal from Final Settlement.—Persons claiming to be trustees of a devised estate, but who are neither heirs, devisees, nor legatees, and who have presented no claim against the estate, cannot appeal from a decree rendered in the final settlement of the estate.

Executors.—An Appeal cannot be Taken from an Order of the probate court refusing to postpone the final decree.

Community Property.—A Surviving Wife cannot be Deprived of her rights in community property by an act of the husband subjecting such property to the control of trustees for the use of others.

TEMPLE, J. The executor of the above estate filed his final account with a petition for settlement and for a distribution of the estate, December 12, 1892. He reported that he had in his hands, after payment of debts and expenses, $1,855.41, from which he asked to be allowed attorney’s fees and accruing costs, and prayed that the balance be distributed to the parties entitled thereto; that the testator left one child, Arthur W. Burdick, and; a widow, Alice H. Bur-dick; that by his will his entire estate was left to his son. January 31, 1893, Alice H. Burdick filed her petition, claiming that there was other property belonging to the estate, and asked to have such property recovered for the estate. August 30, 1893, A. W. Burdick and A. M. Sutton asked to have the money in the hands of the executor distributed to them as surviving trustees of a trust, or that the entire estate be given to A. W. Burdick as sole legatee and devisee. The petitions were submitted, and taken under advisement. July 20, 1893, Burdick and Sutton filed a more elaborate petition, asking the court to distribute the money to them as trustees. October 9, 1893, the court denied the application of the widow to compel the executor to include other property, and ordered a distribution of the estate as community property. One-half of the money, at the special request of A. W. Bur-dick, was distributed t-o A. W. Burdick and A. M. Sutton, trustees, and the other one-half to the widow. At that time counsel for A. W. Burdick and A. M. Sutton, trustees, and for A. W. Burdick individually, asked the court to suspend entry of the order of distribution until the title of the fund could be determined by proper action in a court of general jurisdiction. This application was denied, and the court proceeded to settle the final account of the executor, and to distribute the property. Appeals are taken from this decree by the executor, by A. W. Burdick and A. M. Sutton as trustees, and by A. W. Burdick individually. The appeals are brought here together, and by stipulation all use the same transcript, and they have been argued and submitted as one appeal.

The executor states in his notice of appeal that he appeals from the whole decree, “except so much of said decree as settles the account of said executor, from which last-named [8]portion he does not appeal.” The executor claims that the decree distributes the estate to strangers; that neither the trustees nor the wife, as to community property, are heirs, legatees, or devisees of S. P. Burdick, deceased, and those claiming through them are the only persons to whom distribution can lawfully be made. The executor cannot, on this appeal, claim that the court erroneously found the money to be the property of the estate, rather than the property of the trustee; for the court, in settling the final account, adjudged that he had the amount in his hands belonging to the estate, and from that part of the decree he does not appeal.

In re Burdick's Estate

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief