Le Roux's Estate, In re
| Decision Date | 07 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | 35362,Nos. 35281,s. 35281 |
| Citation | 350 P.2d 1001,55 Wn.2d 889 |
| Parties | ESTATE of Militene LE ROUX, Deceased. Frank LE ROUX, Joe LeRoux, Archie LeRoux, LaSalle LeRoux and Margaret Adams, Appellants, v. Malen MAHER, Edward G. Gwinn, Frank LeRoux, and Alberta Wray, as Administrators of Estate of Militene LeRoux, Deceased, Respondents, Jack F. PATTERSON, Edward G. Gwinn, Irene Grate, Mary Romano and Malen Maher, Appellants, v. Frank LE ROUX, Alberta Wray, Edward G. Gwinn and Malen Maher, as Administrators of Estate of Militene LeRoux, Deceased, and Alberta Wray, Geraldine Nibler (otherwise known as Sister Xavier), Delphine Huff, Frank LeRoux, Archie LeRoux, LaSalle LeRoux, Margaret Adams, and representative of Joe LeRoux, Deceased, Individually, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Cameron Sherwood and William M. Tugman, Walla Walla, for appellants Jack F. Patterson, Edward G. Gwinn, Irene Grate, Mary Romano and Malen Maher.
Charles Snyder, Walla Walla, for appellants in Cause No. 35281 and respondents in Cause No. 35362.
Militene LeRoux died intestate in Walla Walla on July 11, 1957. She was survived by thirteen nieces and nephews, who were the children of her three sisters and one brother. She left no issue, husband, father, mother, brother, or sister. Four of the survivors, one from each of the four families, were appointed to serve as coadministrators.
On February 17, 1959, the hearing on the final account was held and an order of distribution by representation, or per stirpes, was entered.
On March 5, 1959, the members of one of the four families, hereinafter referred to as the LeRoux group, filed a petition to vacate the order of distribution on the ground that a mistake of law had been made in the order distributing the estate by representation. A hearing on the petition was held March 16, 1959. The petition was granted, and an order of vacation was entered on March 19, 1959. This was put upon the ground that the distribution order should have been per capita rather than per stirpes.
On the same day, the LeRoux group, entertaining a doubt as to the jurisdiction of the court to enter the order of vacation they had procured, served notice of appeal from the order of distribution itself. Their misgiving was well founded because a mistake of law will not support the vacation of a judgment. Kern v. Kern, 28 Wash.2d 617, 183 P.2d 811, and cases cited.
Notwithstanding the lack of jurisdiction in the court to vacate the order, a second hearing on the final account was held on May 27, 1959, pursuant to notice, and a second order of distribution was entered which distributed the estate per capita. On the same day, representatives of a group of heirs, hereinafter referred to as the Patterson group, filed a notice of appeal from the second order of distribution.
The appeals of the two groups have been consolidated and each has moved to dismiss the other's appeal.
On the Patterson group's motion to dismiss the LeRoux group's appeal from the first order of distribution per stirpes, they contend that the LeRoux group's notice of appeal is invalid because it was given fifty minutes after the vacation of the order from which the appeal was taken. They also contend that the trial court had no jurisdiction to vacate the first order for a mistake of law.
We agree with this latter contention, which necessarily leaves the first order of distribution in effect upon either the ground that, as the Patterson group contend, it was never validly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bjurstrom v. Campbell
...Washington has long recognized the principle that a mistake of law will not support vacation of a judgment. In re Estate of LeRoux, 55 Wash.2d 889, 890, 350 P.2d 1001 (1960). In State ex rel. Green v. Superior Court, 58 Wash.2d 162, 164-65, 361 P.2d 643 (1961), the court stated: If ... the ......
-
Wegley's Estate, In re
...the property in accordance with the law applicable thereto is subject to reversal or modification on appeal. In re LeRoux's Estate (1960), 55 Wash.2d 889, 350 P.2d 1001. Here, assuming that the probate court was distributing real property and not the proceeds of a sale and assuming further ......
-
Port of Port Angeles v. CMC Real Estate Corp.
...of a judgment. Burlingame v. Consolidated Mines & Smelting Co., 106 Wash.2d 328, 336, 722 P.2d 67 (1986); In re Estate of LeRoux, 55 Wash.2d 889, 890, 350 P.2d 1001 (1960). In State ex rel. Green v. Superior Court, 58 Wash.2d 162, 164, 165, 361 P.2d 643 (1961), the court If ... the court de......
-
Bronson's Estate, In re
...descends to his nieces and nephews, living at his death, per capita, as his next of kin in equal degree.' See also In re LeRoux's Estate, 55 Wash.2d 889, 350 P.2d 1001; Bones v. Lollis, 192 Or. 376, 234 P.2d All of the foregoing cases are under statutes similar or identical to ours. However......