Denlinger's Estate, In re
| Decision Date | 16 June 1950 |
| Parties | In re DENLINGER'S ESTATE. DENLINGER v. LUTON. Civ. 3994. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Allen G. Mitchell, El Cajon, for appellant.
C. Rupert Linley, El Cajon, for respondent.
Objector and appellant herein, Roy G. Denlinger, is the son of decedent. Under the terms of her will he is entitled to an undivided one-third interest in the estate. After the will had been admitted to probate and during the course of administration, the executrix, Ava Luton, daughter of deceased, filed a petition to sell, at private sale, to the highest bidder, subject to confirmation by the court, the ranch property inventoried in the estate and appraised at $15,000. The sale was duly noticed. A bid in the sum of $16,000 was received for the property from Kermit G. Heise, son-in-law, and Lottie L. Heise, daughter of the executrix. A return of sale and petition for confirmation was filed on May 16, 1949. Appellant filed an objection thereto upon the grounds that the sale was conducted contrary to the provisions of sec. 583 of the Probate Code and voidable for the reason (1) of the relationship of the bidders to the executrix; (2) that the sale was not necessary for the payment of debts or costs of administration since objector offered to pay into court such costs; and (3) that there was not sufficient evidence upon which the court could find that the sale was for the advantage and interest of the estate.
Upon the hearing of the petition to confirm the sale, there being no other bidders, the court confirmed it subject to the objection filed. On hearing the objection, evidence was taken on the subject which may be summarized as follows: The property was advertised for sale over a considerable length of time. Prospective purchasers visited the property but no other bids were received. The ranch property, which was impracticable of partition, was about the only asset of the estate. The other item was personal property appraised at $480.58. Appellant is the only objector. The two remaining devisees, other than the executrix, were satisfied with the sale. The executrix had resided on the property for about 15 years prior to the death of her mother. Her daughter and son-in-law also resided there. The undisputed evidence is that the bidder and his wife negotiated a loan from one Minor for $7,000. As security, they were to execute a first trust deed on the property when the sale was confirmed. They deposited $1,600 of their own money, which accompanied the bid. They arranged for a loan from their great-aunt for the balance of the purchase price and costs, amounting to about $7,500. The executrix testified she agreed to repay the great-aunt that amount and to take a note and second trust deed on the ranch from the Heises as security for the repayment of that amount when her distributive share came to her; that she was not taking title to the property but made this loan because she wanted to put her money out at interest; that she was crippled and living with her daughter until further arrangements could be made. She testified she was not purchasing the property for herself either directly or indirectly.
After the hearing the court overruled the objection, found that the executrix practiced no fraud, was not interested in the sale either directly or indirectly, that it was necessary and for the best interests of the estate that the property be sold, and it approved the sale.
In support of appellant's first claim he cites Strudthoff v. Yates, 28 Cal.2d 602, 170 P.2d 873; 11B, Cal.Jur., p. 56, sec. 670; 34 C.J.S., Executors and Administrators, § 599a, page 562; and 131 A.L.R. 990-1003. The Strudthoff case is no authority for the claim here made because the evidence here indicated that the executrix never acquired any title to the property, directly or indirectly, and the court so found. The mere relationship of the bidder here involved, alone, would not necessarily, in and of itself, force a finding that the sale should be voided.
In 34 C.J.S., Executors and Administrators, § 598, page 562, cited by appellant, it is stated that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Culbertson v. McCann
...and therefore declared the sale was voidable. California's self-dealing statute is substantially the same as Oklahoma's. 14 In In Re Denlinger's Estate, 15 the executrix sold estate property at a duly noticed private sale to her daughter and son-in-law. The decedent's heir objected to the s......
-
Estate of Barthelmess
...sale was in the best interest of the estate. (See Estate of George, supra, 123 Cal.App. 733, 737, 12 P.2d 86; Estate of Denlinger (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 130, 131-133, 219 P.2d 495; 3 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (3d ed. 1986) § 2033 et seq., p. 1994 et Mallette contends the court abused its discreti......