Hart v. Los Angeles County
| Decision Date | 27 March 1968 |
| Citation | 260 Cal.App.2d 512,67 Cal.Rptr. 242 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | William S. HART, Jr., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 30762. |
N. E. Youngblood, Beverly Hills, for plaintiff and appellant.
Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, and Mitchell L. Lathrop, Deputy County Counsel, for defendant and respondent.
The factual background of this appeal is taken from the brief of the appellant, omitting transcript references:
'This is an action for declaratory relief, forfeiture, and an accounting, which arises out of the Last Will and Testament of William S. Hart, Sr., who died in Los Angeles County on June 23, 1946, leaving a Will executed September 9, 1944, through which defendant County of Los Angeles was designated as the primary beneficiary under two trusts (consisting of) * * * ranch property commonly known as The Hart Ranch (or Horseshoe Ranch) at Newhall, California, containing approximately 220 acres, together with other personal property consisting of cash and the residue and remainder of the estate which ultimately represented a sum amounting to approximately $900,000.00.
'Plaintiff William S. Hart, Jr. is the only issue of William S. Hart, Sr., deceased, who left no surviving spouse, as a result of which, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 222 of the Probate Code of the State of California, plaintiff William S. Hart, Jr. would have been entitled to the entire estate of his father William S. Hart, Sr., had said William S. Hart, Sr. died intestate.
'Subsequent to the death of William S. Hart, Sr., his Last Will and Testament dated September 9, 1944 was contested by plaintiff William S. Hart, Jr., without success, and a Decree of Distribution was ultimately made thereon, which Decree of Distribution was entered on or about December 2, 1955 awarding to the defendant County of Los Angeles the sole and exclusive management, supervision and control of all of the above mentioned real and personal property derived through the Last Will and Testament of William S. Hart, Sr. pursuant to and under the two separate trusts created thereby.
'It is the contention of plaintiff William S. Hart, Jr. in this proceeding that defendant County of Los Angeles has not done and performed the terms and conditions on its part to be done and performed under the Decree of Distribution entered December 2, 1955 and the Last Will and Testament of William S. Hart, Sr., and the two trusts created therein, or in accordance therewith, as the direct and proximate result of which it is contended that defendant County of Los Angeles has forfeited whatever right or interest it otherwise would have had in and to said real and personal property of said estate, and is not legally entitled to keep and retain any portion thereof.
'* * *ht
'Under the Last Will and Testament of William S. Hart, Sr. dated September 9, 1944 it was provided:
'* * * If the County, or its successors in interest or estate, shall fail, neglect or refuse to perform each or any of the other conditions hereby imposed, the said property shall, immediately upon the happening of either or any of said events, Revert (emphasis ours), and shall go and be distributed, to the State of California for the same uses and purposes and upon the same conditions imposed upon the State of California as are herein set forth and imposed upon the County.'
'In the Second Amended Complaint
'it is alleged that plaintiff is informed and believes that defendant State of California, designated as an alternate beneficiary or 'trustee' herein, will not accept the within property or trusts, as the result of which plaintiff is entitled thereto as if said decedent had died intestate.
'A. The First Cause of Action is for Declaratory Relief, under which plaintiff-appellant seeks to have the Court adjudicate his rights and those of the defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, including particularly the question as to whether or not defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES has failed to do and perform the terms and conditions on its part to be done and performed under the provisions of the Last Will and Testament of William S. Hart, Sr., the two trusts created thereby, and the Decree of Distribution entered December 2, 1955 in action No. P--257566.
'B. The Second Cause of Action seeks to have the Court adjudicate a forfeiture of all right, title and interest which the defendant-respondent COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES may otherwise have had to any property heretofore derived or to be derived from the Estate of William S. Hart, Sr., and that all said property should revert back to the Estate of William S. Hart, Sr. to be administered as if said decedent had died intestate.
The alleged basis for such claimed forfeiture is that defendant-respondent COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES has failed to do and perform the terms and conditions on its part to be done and performed under the Last Will and Testament of William S. Hart, Sr., the two trusts created thereby, and the Decree of Distribution entered December 2, 1955.
'C. The Third Cause of Action seeks an accounting from defendant-respondent COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES for all property and moneys heretofore received by said defendant-respondent from or through the Estate of William S. Hart, Sr., upon the ground that the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES has forfeited any interest therein and plaintiff-appellant, as the surviving son and sole heir at law of decedent William S. Hart, Sr., is a party interested in said estate, as provided in Section 222 of the Probate Code of the State of California.
'Defendant County of Los Angeles demurred to the Second Amended Complaint upon the ground that the Second Amended Complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action 'in that the said cause of action is not brought by the real party in interest', which demurrer was urged by said defendant County of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tinsley v. Palo Alto Unified School Dist.
...Municipal Improvement League v. City of Oakland (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 165, 170-171, 100 Cal.Rptr. 29; Hart v. County of Los Angeles (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 512, 516, 67 Cal.Rptr. 242; McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (1914) 235 U.S. 151, 164, 35 S.Ct. 69, 72, 59 L.Ed. 169, 175; Brown v. B......
-
City of Palm Springs v. Living Desert Reserve
...holds the property "as trustee of a charitable trust for the benefit of the public in general." (Hart v. County of Los Angeles (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 512, 516, 67 Cal.Rptr. 242.) However, in neither of those two opinions did the appellate court address the issue of whether the forfeiture lan......
-
Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com.
...17 Cal.2d 13, 19, 108 P.2d 906; Oakland Municipal Improvement League v. City of Oakland (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 165, 170, 100 Cal.Rptr. 29, 67 Cal.Rptr. 242; Hart v. County of Los Angeles (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 512, 516; 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Pleading, § Section 1086 expresses ......
-
Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa
...P.2d 906; Oakland Municipal Improvement League v. City of Oakland, 23 Cal.App.3d 165, 170, 100 Cal.Rptr. 29; Hart v. County of Los Angeles, 260 Cal.App.2d 512, 516, 67 Cal.Rptr. 242; 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Pleading, § 814, p. 2424.) The same rule is reasonably, and authorita......
-
A Charitable Catch-22: Standing for Private Attorney General Actions in California
...relator status, a trustee or a defined group of beneficiaries with standing and not donors); Hart v. County of Los Angeles (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 512 (holding that the heir of the donor did not have standing to enforce compliance of the terms of the trust); Brown v. Memorial Nat'l Home Found......