Le Jeune v. Superior Court In and For San Diego County
| Decision Date | 26 July 1963 |
| Citation | 32 Cal.Rptr. 390,218 Cal.App.2d 696 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Willis J. LE JEUNE, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., Respondents. Civ. 7293. |
David H. R. Pain, San Diego, for petitioner.
Orfield, Thompson & Bunker, San Diego, for respondent E. N. LeJeune.
This is an application for a writ of prohibition to restrain the Superior Court from trying, without a jury, the issues raised by a petition for the appointment of a conservator and written objections thereto. The applicant herein is the subject of the conservatorship proceedings thus initiated; filed the written objections in question; denied that he is incompetent or that a conservator should be appointed for his estate; filed a timely demand for a jury trial of the issues thus raised; and posted the necessary fees therefor. His request for a jury trial was denied. The instant proceedings followed.
The sole issue for determination is whether the subject of a conservatorship proceeding is entitled to a trial by jury of the issues raised by the petition for the appointment of a conservator and his written objections filed in opposition thereto.
Proceedings to effect a conservatorship are governed by the provisions of the Probate Code which direct: '* * * the superior court, if satisfied by sufficient evidence of the need therefor,' to appoint a conservator of the person or property of an adult person, under specifically designated circumstances; authorize the filing of a petition requesting such appointment; require a hearing thereon after notice; and permit the proposed conservatee, among others, to 'appear and oppose the petition.' (Prob.Code, §§ 1751, 1754.) The foregoing provisions, both in content and phraseology, are similar to those governing the appointment of a guardian. (Prob.Code, §§ 1460, 1461.) The two proceedings contemplate the accomplishment of substantially identical purposes, as evidenced by the provisions of § 1703 of the Probate Code that: 'A petitioner may elect to apply either for letters of conservatorship or letters of guardianship, or he may apply for such letters in the alternative' and, 'No appointment of both a conservator and a guardian shall be made for the same person or estate.' The issues raised by objections to a petition for the appointment of a guardian, upon demand, are subject to trial by jury. (Budde v. Superior Court, 97...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Katz v. Superior Court
...conservator. The former's right to a jury trial is established by precedent, and by present statute. (Le Jeune v. Superior Court (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 696, 698, 32 Cal.Rptr. 390; Prob.Code, § 1754.1, as added Stats. 1976, ch. 1357, § 27, operative July 1, 1977.) The question of the burden o......
-
People v. Epps
...court's jurisdiction, entitling the requesting party to relief from the denial by writ of prohibition. (Le Jeune v. Superior Court (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 696, 698, 32 Cal.Rptr. 390; Mallarino v. Superior Court (1953) 115 Cal.App.2d 781, 784, 252 P.2d 993; Budde v. Superior Court (1950) 97 Ca......
-
City of Downey v. Johnson
...479, 226 A.2d 437, 438.5 Basically, the rules applicable to guardians also apply to conservators. (See Le Jeune v. Superior Court (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 696, 697, 32 Cal.Rptr. 390; Witkin, Summary of Calif. Law 1967 Supp., p. 1350.)6 See footnote 3, supra.7 The trial court file discloses ano......
-
Estate of Muller
...trial on factual issues raised in proceedings taken under Probate Code, sections 442, 450 or 521. (Cf. Le Jeune v. Superior Court (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 696, 698, 32 Cal.Rptr. 390; and Budde v. Superior Court (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 615, 617--622, 218 P.2d 103.)9 Probate Code, section 442 provi......