Naccarato v. Bell

SHINN, P. J. We have an appeal from an order in the matter of the estate and guardianship of John Daniel Naccarato and Timothy Edward Naccarato, minors, denying the petition of John P. Naccarato, grandfather of the minors, and their guardian ad litem in the proceeding, for the removal as guardian of the estates of the minors, James G. Bell, who is the stepfather of the minors, having married their mother after the death of their father. The order appealed from also denied the petition of the grandfather for appointment of a corporate guardian of the estates in the event Mr. Bell should be removed.

It was alleged in the petition that the guardian receives monthly for the benefit of each minor $61.53 as a pension from the city of Los Angeles and the further sum as Social Security benefits $47.51 and that the guardian is authorized under order of court to use from the assets of the guardianship $105.93 monthly for their support, maintenance and education, commencing February 27, 1958. The guardian was appointed January 5, 1959. It was then alleged that Mr. Bell does not in fact expend $105.93 monthly for the benefit of the minors but diverts a substantial part of the minors’ pension income to purposes other than their support, maintenance and education, and that by reason thereof the interests of the guardian are adverse to those of the minors. Although the answer of the guardian to the petition does not deny any of its allegations it would appear that the trial proceeded as if the allegations which purport to state the grounds for removal were denied. The court found it was not true that the guardian does not expend $105.93 per month for the support of each minor and that it was not true that the guardian diverts a substantial part of the minors’ pension income to purposes other than their support, maintenance and education. These findings fully dispose of the issues.

In the brief of appellant he does not specify as a ground of appeal insufficiency of the evidence to support the foregoing findings. However, he asserts that he requested the court to make special findings whether the guardian had commingled guardianship funds with his own, whether he used part of the guardianship funds to apply upon the payment of claims against the estate of their deceased mother, and whether the guardian was authorized by court order to transfer $1,353.66 from the guardianship account to his own personal account, and that the court refused to make such findings. Appellant’s argument on this point reads as follows: “The [120]court erred in refusing to make specific findings as timely requested, in writing. Code Civ. Proe., Sec. 634, as amended in 1959.” In view of the absence of any discussion of the point in the brief it will be deemed to have been abandoned.