Capolino's Estate, In re
Decision Date | 09 November 1949 |
Citation | 210 P.2d 850,94 Cal.App.2d 574 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | In re CAPOLINO'S ESTATE. Civ. 7682. Sac. 6026. |
C. H. McCray, Merced, Edward A. Hayes and Otho S. Bowling, New York City, for appellant.
Leonard G. Ratner, Beverly Hills, C. P. Dorr, San Francisco, for respondent.
Joseph Caplino died in Merced County November 22, 1945, whereupon Helen Capolino, representing herself as the surviving wife of decedent, was appointed administratrix of his estate, on December 3, 1945. On May 16th Helen Capolino filed an inentory and appraisement showing the assets of the estate to be of the approximate value of $50,000. In July, 1946, Hilda Mathews, daughter of Joseph Capolino by his prior marriage, filed in the estate proceedings a will executed by decedent in August, 1930, which named his said daughter as principal beneficiary. Helen Capolino then filed her first account and report as administratrix, together with her resignation. Hilda Matthews filed objections to the inventory and to the account and report of the administratrix, claiming that Helen Capolino held in her own name property which should be included in the estate of Joseph Capolino. Prior to a hearing on said objections Helen Capolino died, her son, Arthur Miller, was appointed administrator of her estate, and the administration of the estate of Joseph Capolino was turned over to the public administrator. Hearings on the objections of Hilda Matthews were had on April 18, 1947, and April 30, 1948, Arthur Miller appearing in opposition to said objections. The trial court decided that the property standing in the name of Helen Capolino was her separate property, that no constructive or resulting trust in any of same had been established therein, and that none of it should be included in the estate of Joseph Capolino. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed and a decree entered approving, allowing and settling the account of Helen Capolino. A motion for a new trial, which was based in part on insufficiency of the evidence, was denied, and this appeal followed.
The findings recite the following facts. Joseph Capolino and Helen Miller met in New York City prior to 1928. Both were then married to other persons, but they secured divorces in that year and began living together, though they never married. Helen had substantial business and property interests of her own which included a one-half interest in the Roma Cheese Company, shares of stock and life insurance. Joseph and Helen engaged in business enterprises in New York, the capital for which was largely furnished by Helen. In 1935 the two came to Merced where they organized the Capolino Food Products Company, then the Ripon Canning Corporation, and, in 1940, the Capolino Packing Corporation, the capital, approximately $63,000, being supplied in large part by Helen from her separate funds. All the shares of stock of the latter two corporations were issued to Helen. The two parties kept their respective funds in separate bank accounts. In 1940 the Capolino Corporation borrowed $37,500 from Amerigo Vitelli, and about $7,500 from Gus Sclafani, such loans being negotiated by Joseph, but ultimately repaid by the corporation. In 1939 the Ripon Canning Corporation borrowed $17,391.33 from Domenico D'Angiola, Helen negotiating the loan, which was repaid by the Capolino Packing Corporation. In 1941 the Capolino Packing Corporation borrowed $50,000 from D'Angiola, said loan being negotiated by Joseph but paid by the Capolino Packing Corporation. In 1940 the Capolino Packing Corporation owed the American Can Company $33,000 in part payment of which debt the Can Company took Joseph's note for $25,000, the remainder being paid in cash by the Capolino Packing Corporation. In March, 1945, Joseph's note was paid by Helen out of funds in her name.
In January, 1944, the Capolino Packing Corporation was sold. The contract of sale was signed by both Joseph and Helen, and it expressly represented that Helen was the owner of all of the shares of stock, 'free and clear of all liens and encumbrances of every kind, nature and description and that no other person, firm or corporation has any right, title, claim or interest in or to any of the shares of the capital stock of said corporation.' Helen received the proceeds of the sale and undertook to pay off certain outstanding obligations of the corporation. Federal income tax returns of Joseph and Helen were prepared by Joseph, and in Helen's return the entire gain from the sale of the corporation was set forth as her separate income. In 1942 and 1943 both parties engaged in separate business transactions and lent money.
The findings also recite that the account and inventory in Joseph's estate set forth all of the known assets;...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Courtright's Estate, Matter of
...for the one so claiming, must establish such claim by evidence that is clear, satisfactory and convincing." In re Capolino's Estate, 94 Cal.App.2d 574, 210 P.2d 850 (1949), at 852, quoting Redsted v. Weiss, 73 Cal.App.2d 889, 167 P.2d 735 (1946).In the instant case the trial court placed a ......
-
Hopkins v. Martinez (In re Espino)
...and convincing." Russ Ballard & Family Achievement Inst. , 97 Idaho at 579, 548 P.2d at 79 (quoting In re Capolino's Estate , 94 Cal. App. 2d 574, 577, 210 P.2d 850, 852 (1949) ).14 Under Idaho law, a resulting trust arises where "title to property is transferred to one party, the trustee, ......
-
Hopkins v. Martinez (In re Espino)
... ... 6. By his complaint, Trustee seeks a ... determination that real property titled in Debtor's name ... belongs to the bankruptcy estate and by implication that ... Defendant does not have an interest in the property ... Alternatively, if Defendant proves an interest in ... ...
-
Moore's Estate, In re
...202 Cal. 215, 277, 259 P. 947, 952. To the same effect see Chard v. O'Connell, 7 Cal.2d 663, 665, 62 P.2d 369; In re Estate of Capolino, 94 Cal.App.2d 574, 577, 210 P.2d 850. The proof at bar does not measure up to that standard. The court properly found that there was no such The will is h......