Laing v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Nov 18, 1948 No. Civ. No. 16719Published

Before: McComb

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The probate court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate title to property when it is claimed adversely by a stranger to the probate proceedings. Consequently, a judgment rendered by the probate court in such a proceeding is void.

Issues

Did the probate court have jurisdiction under Probate Code sections 612 and 613 to determine conflicting claims of title to an automobile between the estate and strangers to the probate proceedings?

Disposition. Peremptory writ of prohibition issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is the general rule that the probate court does not have jurisdiction to try title to property where it is claimed adversely by a stranger to the probate proceedings.”

“Petitioners were strangers to the probate proceedings and therefore the probate court was without jurisdiction to determine the conflicting claims of the adverse parties to the automobile in question.”

“Since the order of the probate court was beyond its jurisdiction it was void”

McCOMB, J. Petitioners have applied for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the superior court from enforcing by execution an order made in a proceeding instituted under the provisions of sections 6121 and 6132 of the Probate Code.

Facts

1. December 1, 1945, John Earl Riggan died leaving surviving his sister, Florence Vesely, petitioner herein. At the time of his death decedent was the registered owner of a Ford automobile of the approximate value of $575, which automobile was in the possession of petitioner Vesely. Decedent left no other property or estate.

2. January 2, 1946, petitioner Vesely executed and filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of [643]California an affidavit pursuant to the provisions of section 1853 of the Vehicle Code of the State of California, whereupon the Department of Motor Vehicles transferred the ownership of the aforementioned Ford to petitioner Vesely. Immediately thereafter said petitioner sold the automobile to petitioner Laing.

3. February 5, 1946, Jeanne E. Eiggan was appointed administratrix of the estate of decedent.

4. June 27, 1946, the administratrix of decedent’s estate filed a petition in the probate court requesting that a citation issue to petitioners to appear and be examined under the provisions of sections 612 and 613 of the Probate Code. A petition was issued as prayed and petitioners were examined on July 30, 1946, relative to the above mentioned automobile. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge of the probate court entered a judgment decreeing that petitioners deliver said automobile to the administratrix and if it could not be delivered that she recover from petitioners the sum of $575.

5. October 9, 1947, the Sheriff of Los Angeles County, pursuant to an alias writ of execution theretofore issued by the clerk of the superior court for the enforcement of said judgment, levied on all of the interest of petitioner Laing in the estate of Jack Lewis Forsmit then being administered in the probate department of the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

6. July 15, 1948, the probate court made an order in the estate of Jack Lewis Forsmit directing the administrator of such estate by virtue of the above mentioned writ of execution to distribute to the Sheriff of Los Angeles County all of the property and interest of petitioner Laing in said estate.

Laing v. Superior Court

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief