Oliver's Conservatorship, In re
Decision Date | 08 June 1961 |
Citation | 192 Cal.App.2d 832,13 Cal.Rptr. 695 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | In the Matter of CONSERVATORSHIP of the Person and Estate OF Ellzabeth Ellen OLIVER, Conservatee. Evan D. OLIVER, Appellant, v. Jane Ellen ALLEN, Rosemary Rochholz and Security-First National Bank, Respondents. Civ. 6571. |
Evan D. Oliver, in pro. per.
Andrews & Andrews, Fresno, for respondents.
On July 11, 1960, Jane Ellen Allen and Rosemary Rochholz, granddaughters, petitioned the Superior Court of Fresno County for appointment as conservators of the person and estate of their grandmother, Elizabeth Ellen Oliver, aged 86, alleging that she was unable to properly care for herself and her property. Objection thereto was filed by Evan D. Oliver, son, alleging petitioners were not fit or proper persons to act as conservators. It is likewise alleged that there was a prior action pending to determine the conservatorship of her person and estate which had been filed in Los Angeles County and transferred to Fresno County; that on July 21, 1960, objector here was appointed in Los Angeles County temporary conservator pending the disposition of objector's petition for appointment as permanent conservator.
The prayer of the objector to the present proceeding, Evan D. Oliver, was that the petition be denied and that he be appointed, and that the two actions be consolidated for hearing at the same time.
On August 12, 1960, by stipulation of respective counsel, it was ordered that the proceeding here be consolidated with the other proceeding for hearing, at the same time and reserving for determination by the court all questions of jurisdiction involved in either of the proceedings. After hearing, on September 6, 1960, it was ordered by Judge Kellas that objector's petition for appointment be denied, the present petition be granted and Jane Ellen Allen be appointed conservator of the person of Mrs. Oliver and the Security-First National Bank (Fresno) be appointed conservator of her estate, with certain directions and designating additional powers to be exercised. Letters were issued accordingly.
On September 14, 1960, Evan D. Oliver, through his attorney, appealed from the:
'* * * following judgments or orders made in the above-entitled matter:
'2. From the Order entered in proceeding No. 33443 appointing the [bank] * * * conservator of the estate * * *
On September 15, 1960, counsel for conservators moved in the trial court, under Probate Code, § 2102, for an order directing the exercise of their powers as conservators as though no appeal were pending from the orders appointing them. Said motion was granted and it was so ordered on September 20, 1960 by Judge Kellas.
On September 29, 1960, counsel for Evan D. Oliver filed an abandonment of appeal which reads that he has 'and does by these presents abandon his appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of California, which said Notice of Appeal was heretofore filed in the above-entitled matter.'
The respective counsel petitioned the court to allow certain claims, attorney's fees and costs from the estate. Evan D. Oliver appeared in propria persona and objected to such allowances. A hearing was had and the matter submitted. On November 3, 1960, Oliver obtained an agreement of his attorney to substitute himself out and to allow Oliver to proceed in propria persona.
On November 3, 1960, Oliver filed a notice of appeal, appealing from the order and judgment entered on September 6, 1960 'denying the petition and making certain other orders in said action.'
On November 4, 1960, Oliver, in propria persona, filed another notice of appeal, appealing from the order and judgment entered on September 6, 1960, 'denying objections, appointing conservators, and making certain other orders in said action [number 33508].'
On November 14, 1960, counsel for conservators filed a motion in the superior court to strike from the files said notices of appeal and objections to petition for allowance of attorney's fees on the grounds that since there had been an abandonment of a prior appeal and the abandonment was in effect an affirmance of the judgment, it was not subject to a second appeal.
On December 1, 1960, Judge Goldstein heard that motion and concluded that he had not jurisdiction to strike said documents and denied it without prejudice. He then ordered that the previous order of Judge Kellas of September 20, 1960, directing the exercise of the powers of the conservators as though no appeal were pending be confirmed and continued in full force and effect.
On December 30, 1960, Judge Kellas ordered attorney's fees and costs allowed and directed payment. On January 19, 1961, Oliver filed another notice of appeal from that part of the order and judgment entered on December 1, 1960, directing the exercise of the powers of said conservators as though no appeal were pending, and holding that the former order of September 20, 1960 was in full force and effect.
On January 23, 1961, Oliver filed still another notice of appeal from a minute order of December 27, 1960, allowing payments of attorney's fees and costs and from a similar signed order entered December 30, 1960.
On April 28, 1961, counsel for conservators moved in this court to dismiss the first two of said appeals on the grounds that said appeals were barred as a result of a voluntary, written abandonment of a prior appeal from the same orders, and as to the third of said appeals from the order of Judge Goldstein of December 1, 1960, confirming the previous order of December 6 in reference to directing exercise of powers of conservator on the grounds that the issues raised by said appeal are moot and the appeal is frivolous since the original order directing exercise of powers of conservators became final on the abandonment of the appeal. Citing Rule 19(a), Rules on Appeal; Code Civ.Proc. § 955; Estate of Corcofingas, 24 Cal.2d 517, 150 P.2d 194; Winslow v. Harold G. Ferguson Corp., 25 Cal.2d 274, 153 P.2d 714; Sullivan v. Gage, 145 Cal. 759, 79 P. 537.
In opposition to the motion to dismiss the appeal, Oliver, in propria persona, claims that the notices of appeal of November 3 and 4 appealed from the entire judgment and the notice of appeal filed by his attorney on September 14 appealed only from specific portions of it. It is further claimed by Oliver that he did not authorize his counsel to abandon his appeal with prejudice, that he received nothing from respondent in exchange for said abandonment and also that he was not informed of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jasmon O., In re
...remarkably awkward position. Normally the involuntary dismissal of an appeal leaves the judgment intact. (Conservatorship of Oliver (1961) 192 Cal.App.2d 832, 835-836, 13 Cal.Rptr. 695; Eisenberg et al., Cal.Practice Guide: Civil Appeals & Writs (The Rutter Group 1989) p 5:48, p. 5-10; 9 Wi......
- People v. Thomas
-
County of Fresno v. Shelton
... ... (In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 413, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 85, 878 P.2d 1297; Conservatorship of Oliver (1961) 192 Cal.App.2d 832, 836, 13 Cal.Rptr. 695; Eisenberg, Horvitz & Wiener, CAL. PRAC. GUIDE: CIV. APPEALS & WRITS 1, supra, p 5:48, ... ...
-
Wilkerson v. Sullivan
... ... Proc., § 913; Conservatorship of Oliver (1961) 192 Cal. App.2d 832, 836-837, 13 Cal.Rptr. 695), which in turn entitles the defendant to recover fees under section 425.16. (See ... ...