Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Tanferani

AGEE, J. Bank of America appea's from an order sustaining certain objections to a guardianship account and directing that “a complete and proper accounting’’ be made. In effect, the order is a determination, on the merits, that the account filed is not complete or proper. This determination was made without the taking of any evidence on the issues raised by the objections. The facts follow.

Egidio Tanferani died prior to 1925, leaving a small amount of personal property and a parcel of ranch property which was distributed as follows: an undivided one-half to his widow (Felicita) and an undivided one-twelfth to each of their six minor children.

On July 8, 1925, Felicita was appointed guardian of the children's estates. At about the same time, she purchased certain dairy stock and equipment and, with the children, moved onto the ranch and operated it until her death.

On October 15, 1928, an inventory and appraisement was filed in the guardianship, showing each child to have an estate of $233.19 in cash and an undivided one-twelfth interest in the real property.

. Felicita died on July 21, 1956, without ever rendering an account as said guardian, although the youngest child had reached her majority on March • 21, 1941.

On October 8, 1956, the bank was appointed special administrator of Felicita’s estate. Three of the children, who are the respondents herein, each filed a creditor’s claim against said estate for moneys allegedly due from her as their guardian.

Upon rejection of these claims, each respondent filed suit. On March 24, 1961, an interlocutory order was made in these actions, directing the bank to account to respondents for all property delivered to Felicita, as guardian, and for rents, issues and profits of the real or other property in the guardianship estate.

On July 21, 1961, the bank filed a first and final account on behalf of Felicita, as such guardian, for the period from July 8, 1925, to the date of her death. Respondents filed 15 objections to the account. Objections numbered 1, 4, 7. 3. 13 and 14 were sustained and the others were denied. Respondents do not complain of the denials.

The principal objections in controversy are those [268]numbered 7 and 8. Number 7 challenges the adequacy of the rental value of each ward’s interest in the real property. Number 8 questions the propriety of charging each ward $20 per month for “support and maintenance” from July 8, 1925, to the respective dates when each attained majority.