Tompioner v. Crosby

California Court of Appeal Jun 24, 1957 No. Civ. No. 22083Published

Before: White

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The probate court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate claims of fraud or misappropriation regarding property that occurred prior to the establishment of a guardianship, as its authority is limited to accounting for assets received during the guardianship.

Issues

Whether a probate court has jurisdiction to determine the ownership of property based on transactions occurring prior to the appointment of a guardian.
Whether the probate court's findings on conflicting evidence regarding the guardian's account are subject to appellate review.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the probate court was correct in its holding that its jurisdiction extends only to a determination of the amount of money or property of the estate that has come into the hands of the guardian, for the purpose of charging her therewith.”

“What may have transpired prior to the adjudication of ineompetency cannot be the subject of inquiry by the superior court sitting in probate if the guardian has faithfully and honestly administered his trust”

WHITE, P. J. Respondent, Dorothea Hanna Crosby is the daughter of appellant Lena Tompioner, and on August 2, 1955, was appointed guardian of the estate and person of her mother. On February 9, 1956, said incompetent filed a petition for restoration to capacity, and on April 2, 1956, such petition was granted. On April 23, 1956, respondent guardian filed her final account, report and petition for discharge, and on May 14,1956, the guardian filed what was designated “Supplement to First and Final Account, Report and Petition for Discharge of Guardian,” covering the receipts and disbursement of certain social security payments received by the guardian on behalf of her ward. On May 9, 1956, appellant filed written objections to the final account of [61]the guardian. On June 6, 1956, with all parties present, a hearing was had on the account and supplement thereto. Thereupon, the court made its order settling the guardian’s account and supplement thereto as prayed and overruling the objections filed thereto by the incompetent. From such order the former incompetent prosecutes this appeal.

In her petition for appointment as guardian, respondent listed as assets of the incompetent’s estate the following personal property:

“A trust deed in the sum of $12,000, payable $150.00 per month;

“Cash in bank account..................$2,000.00 United States Bonds.................. 600.00 Israel Bonds.......................... 300.00 ’ ’

In her first and final account, report and petition for discharge, respondent guardian included the foregoing property and then set forth the principal and interest payments she had received in the foregoing listed trust deed, interest collected on a savings account in bank and on United States government bonds. The guardian also included social security payments received by her for the incompetent. Respondent guardian also set forth the disbursements she had made for and on behalf of her ward, and for which she claimed she was entitled to credit. To epitomize, the final account of respondent guardian showed that at the time she assumed her obligations as such, the assets of the incompetent amounted to $14,900, and at the time of rendition of the final account, representing a period of some eight months, the assets of the guardianship estate amounted to $14,610.97.

On May 9, 1956, appellant, the former incompetent, filed her objections to the accounting as follows:

Tompioner v. Crosby

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief