Kinsler v. Superior Court
| Decision Date | 22 July 1981 |
| Citation | 121 Cal.App.3d 808,175 Cal.Rptr. 564 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Susan KINSLER, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California For the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent, ESTATE OF Arnold KINSLER, Deceased, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 60747. |
Robert M. Ross, Culver City, for petitioner Susan Kinsler.
Maupin, Cutler, Teplinsky & White, by James C. Maupin, Los Angeles, for real party in interest Estate of Arnold Kinsler, Deceased.
Susan Kinsler appeals a minute order entered in an action to dissolve her marriage to Arnold Kinsler. The issue is whether the death of a party in a dissolution proceeding after entry of judgment dissolving the parties' marital status abates the action and deprives the court of jurisdiction to decide the remaining issues in the cause. While the judgment dissolving the parties' marital status is appealable (Code Civ.Proc., § 904.1(j); In re Marriage of Van Sickle (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 728, 736, 137 Cal.Rptr. 568; In re Marriage of Fink (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 357, 362-366, 126 Cal.Rptr. 626), the minute order from which Susan appeals which merely vacated prior minute orders is not. Accordingly, we treat the appeal as a petition for a writ of mandate.
Arnold and Susan Kinsler were married in January 1977 and separated in October 1978. In November 1978 Arnold filed a petition to dissolve the childless marriage. Thereafter, the trial court entered several minute orders regarding, inter alia, the use and disposition of certain property and the award of temporary spousal support to Susan. On 2 November 1979 and 22 January 1980 respectively, the court entered interlocutory and final judgments dissolving the status of the marriage only, and reserving jurisdiction to confirm the parties' separate property and divide their community property at a later date. On 28 January 1980 Arnold Kinsler died. The trial court concluded that Arnold's death deprived it of jurisdiction to decide the remaining issues in the cause. On 4 February 1980 the court on its own motion entered a minute order abating the action and vacating nunc pro tunc as of the date of Arnold's death "all orders heretofore made of any order or description." On February 14 the court entered a second minute order to clarify that its first order was designated merely to vacate the orders it had "made with respect to spousal support, possession or use of real property, restraining orders and similar pendente lite orders."
In her appellate brief Susan argued that the trial court's vacation of all prior orders on February 4 "necessarily vacated" the interlocutory and final judgments dissolving her marital relationship and that the court exceeded its jurisdiction on February 14 when it clarified its February 4 order. Specially, she argued that the February 4 order restored her status as a wife, thereby entitling her to receive a widow's pension from Arnold's estate (Prob.Code, § 680). That contention is entirely without merit. The trial court never intended to vacate, nor did it in fact vacate, its prior judgment on the status of the marriage. It clearly did not exceed its jurisdiction or abuse its discretion on February 14 when it clarified its first order to indicate it was vacating, nunc pro tunc as of the date of Arnold's death, nothing more than interim property and support orders. (Code Civ.Proc., § 473.) In any event, Susan has apparently abandoned this contention since the filing of her appellate brief. On 30 April 1980 the probate court denied her petition for a widow's allowance, and in appellate argument here Susan's counsel conceded the finality of the judgment dissolving her marital status. (See Estate of Casimir (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 773, 97 Cal.Rptr. 623.)
Susan now contends the trial court erred in concluding that Arnold's death deprived that court of jurisdiction to decide the remaining issues in the cause. That contention has merit. In reaching its decision to abate further proceedings in the cause the court expressly relied on In re Marriage of Shayman (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 648, 651, 111 Cal.Rptr. 11. In Shayman the husband in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Drake, In re
...the deceased's estate. (In re Marriage of Allen (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1227-1228, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 916; Kinsler v. Superior Court (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 808, 812, 175 Cal.Rptr. 564.) When the family court expressly reserves jurisdiction over collateral issues such as property rights, spous......
-
Marriage of Mallory, In re
...this proposition, McClenny v. Superior Court (1964) 62 Cal.2d 140, 144, 41 Cal.Rptr. 460, 396 P.2d 916, and Kinsler v. Superior Court (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 808, 175 Cal.Rptr. 564. The Supreme Court also distinguished Estate of Blair (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 161, 244 Cal.Rptr. 627, where the pr......
-
Marriage of Allen, In re
...death, to determine the unadjudicated issues. This argument was answered, adversely to Cliff's position, in Kinsler v. Superior Court (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 808, 175 Cal.Rptr. 564. In facts that parallel our own, Kinsler considered whether the death of a party to a dissolution proceeding, af......
-
Marriage of Hilke, In re
...died. 2 Thereafter, the administrator of her estate was substituted as a party. (Code Civ.Proc., § 385; Kinsler v. Superior Court (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 808, 812, 175 Cal.Rptr. 564.) There had been no change in the title to the property between its acquisition and the date of Mrs. Hilke's Th......
-
Divorce Complications in Estates and Estate Planning: Together With the Unraveling of Common Provisions for the Former Spouse
...of Arnold & Cully, 222 Cal.App.3d 499, 503 (1990).34. West v. Sup. Ct., 59 Cal.App.4th 302, 309 (1997).35. Kinsler v. Superior Ct., 121 Cal.App.3d 808, 812...
-
Till Death Do We Litigate That Divorce
...35 Cal.App.3d at 650.29. Ibid.30. Ibid.31. Ibid.32. Ibid.33. Ibid.34. Id. at 653.35. Id. at 650-51.36. Kinsler v. Superior Court (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 808, 812; In re Marriage of Allen, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at 1228 (Family Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate parties' property rights after ......
-
The Intersection of Death and Divorce: Where Probate and Family Law Collide
...status, submitted to the court for decision prior to the death of a party to the proceeding").53. Kinsler v. Sup. Ct. (Marks) (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 808, 811.54. See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., section 683.55. See Fam. Code, section 2581 providing: For the purpose of division of property on diss......
-
My Client Died During the Dissolution Action, What Do I Do Now?
...held that Cal. Fam. Code § 2640 does not apply in probate proceedings.24. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 377.31, 385; Kinsler v. Super. Ct., 121 Cal. App. 3d 808...