Quinn v. Ehrhardt
Before: Dyke
VAN DYKE, P. J. This appeal was initiated by a notice of appeal entered in the above entitled matter and stating that thereby the appellants appealed “from the order entered in the above matter denying the petition for distribution as prayed for and ordering that the estate be distributed one-half to the heirs of Ida Evanis and one-half to the heirs of John Evanis.”
Respondents have moved to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that no appealable order, judgment or decree had been entered or made. The record shows the following: There had been filed in the estate proceedings a first and final account and petition for distribution wherein it was alleged that the appellants herein were the heirs of Ida Evanis, deceased, and entitled to distribution of all of the property in the estate. Distribution to them accordingly was prayed for. [65]They were all heirs of Ida Evanis whose husband had predeceased her. Certain persons who were related to her predeceased husband claimed that they were entitled to distribution .of a portion of the property in Ida’s estate under the provisions of sections 228 and 229 of the Probate Code. These persons filed objections to the petition for distribution. The matter was heard by the court and after the issues had been briefed the trial judge filed in the cause a written “opinion” which closed with the following paragraphs:
“From the foregoing authorities the Court concludes that the heirs of Ida Evanis and the heirs of John Evanis are each entitled to one half of the proceeds of the real property described in paragraph three of the stipulation, and also of the real property described in paragraph four of the stipulation, according to the laws of succession. As to the rest of the property, no dispute arises.
“The decree will so provide.”
On the same day the clerk entered in the minutes of the court a document entitled “Order,” which, after certain recitals not material here, read as follows:
“. . . the Court being fully advised;
“Orders that the account be settled and that the estate be distributed; the decree of distribution to provide that the heirs of Ida Evanis and the heirs of John Evanis are each entitled to one half of the proceeds of the real property described in paragraph three of the stipulation, and also of the real property described in paragraph four of the stipulation, according to the laws of succession. Opinion of court filed herein this day. ’ ’
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)