Hall v. Lyons

California Court of Appeal May 9, 1955 No. Civ. No. 20730Published

Before: Fox

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the appointment of an administrator because the respondent was legally competent and no person with priority had filed a petition for administration. The court also dismissed the appellant's appeal in his capacity as representative of a separate estate, as he lacked the requisite interest in the decedent's estate.

Issues

Whether the probate court erred in appointing a respondent as administrator when the heir failed to file a petition for letters of administration.
Whether the petition for letters of administration sufficiently stated the character and value of the estate's assets.
Whether the appellant had standing to appeal the appointment in his capacity as the administrator of a separate estate.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court thereupon granted respondent’s petition. This he was authorized to do, for respondent was a “person legally competent” to serve in such capacity.”

“Since appellant, as the personal representative of Miss Lyons’ estate, is not interested in the estate herein, his appeal in such representative capacity must be dismissed.”

FOX, J. This is an appeal hy Lowell Lyons from an order of the probate court appointing Lawrence J. Hall administrator of the estate of Lowell Webster Lyons.

Decedent, father of appellant, passed away on December 10, 1953. He was a resident of Los Angeles County and left an estate therein. On June 3, 1954, respondent filed a petition for letters of administration in the matter of the estate of Lowell Webster Lyons. Hearing was set for June 23d. On that date appellant appeared in person and by counsel. He sought a continuance of the hearing on the petition. His motion was granted and the hearing was continued to July 7,1954. On that date appellant was personally present with his attorney. Further continuance was requested but the motion was denied since no legal ground was shown, and appellant had failed to file a petition on his own behalf for letters of administration of the estate, and indicated he did not intend to file such petition.1

[792]In the brief hearing that followed appellant did not challenge either the qualifications or competency of respondent to act as administrator of .the estate. His sole objection was based on the argument that respondent was not a creditor because his claim for funeral expenses did not arise until “after the .man died.” As the trial court observed, respondent’s status as a creditor was not material in the circumstances of this case.

Respondent pointed out that “we recognize the fact that the heirs have the first right, and if they care to file a petition and administer the estate, naturally they have priority.” (Prob. Code, § 422.) From the failure of appellant to file a petition to probate the estate for nearly seven months after decedent’s death, and the failure to file such petition even after a two weeks’ continuance had been granted, and from what had been said in open court, the trial judge drew the inference that appellant did not intend to probate the estate nor did he wish it probated. . Such an inference is amply supported.

The court thereupon granted respondent’s petition. This he was authorized to do, for respondent was a “person legally competent” to serve in such capacity. (Prob. Code, § 422 (10).) Furthermore, no one having a priority for such appointment had filed any petition therefor. (Prob. Code, § 427; Hinkel v. Crowson, 188 Cal. 378, 382 [206 P. 58]; Estate of Keane, 56 Cal. 407, 410.)

Appellant asserts that “no assets to be administered were set forth in the petition for appointment as required by law.” Such is contrary to the record. The verified petition stated:

Hall v. Lyons

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief