deVall v. Security-First National Bank

McCOMB, J. Plaintiffs filed an action in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County as the heirs at law of Jane F. deVall, deceased, against defendant, Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles, individually, and not as an administrator. The bank was the special administrator of the estate of Jane F. deVall, deceased, with general powers, appointed by the probate court of Orange County. The action is based on the alleged malfeasance of defendant in the performance of its duties as special administrator, consisting in consenting to the sale of certain assets of the estate and in failing to rent certain other property of the estate. Defendant made a motion for change of venue of the action to the probate court of Orange County. This motion was denied. A judgment has not been entered against defendant. Defendant [683]has appealed from the order denying the motion for a change of venue.

Questions: First: Was the order denying the motion for a change of venue am appealable order?

Yes. There is no merit in plaintiffs’ contention that the order denying a motion for change of venue is not appealable but can be reviewed only on an appeal from a judgment.

Section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides in part thus, “. . . An appeal may be taken from a superior court in the following cases: ... From an order . . . changing or refusing to change the place of trial; . . ..” Clearly the foregoing provision is here applicable, and the order was appealable.

Second: Bid the probate court of Orange County have the exclusive jurisdiction of the action against defendant instituted by heirs of decedent because of alleged maladministration?

Yes. A controversy between an administrator and the heirs of a decedent relating to the conduct of such administrator in the administration of the estate, can, as long as the probate court has jurisdiction, be determined only by the judgment or order of such court. (Spencer v. Crocker First Nat. Bank, 86 Cal.App.2d 397, 402 et seq. [194 P.2d 775] [hearing denied by the Supreme Court].) In the Spencer case, Mr. Justice Bray at page 404 says: “Thus, during the pendency of the probate proceedings, all questions between the executor and the beneficiaries concerning its acts as executor and its relationship with them, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court.

“While there is only one superior court, and the probate court is merely a part thereof, that does not change the fact that where, as here, the parties are all ‘interested’ in the estate and are already before the probate court, that court has exclusive jurisdiction of all questions concerning the conduct of the estate and their interests therein. Here the real question is whether the executor has fraudulently withheld a portion of the distributive shares of plaintiffs—beneficiaries of the estate.”