Spinosa's Estate, In re
Decision Date | 17 April 1953 |
Citation | 255 P.2d 843,117 Cal.App.2d 364 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | In re SPINOSA'S ESTATE. SPINOSA et al. v. STATE. Civ. 8094. Sac. 6219. |
Sylvester Andriano, Louis Ferrari, San Francisco, for appellants.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., William J. Power, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Appellants filed a petition in the Superior Court of Sacramento County, under sections 1272 and 1272a of the Code of Civil Procedure, to obtain money on deposit with the State Treasurer. Respondent, state of California, opposed said petition and after trial judgment was rendered against petitioners and this appeal is from said judgment.
The facts, as shown by the settled statement on appeal, are substantially as follows:
Vito Madio Spinosa died intestate in Oakland, California, on January 17, 1941. His heirs, the petitioners and appellants, are non-resident aliens, residing in Italy. Letters of administration were issued to the Public Administrator of Alameda County on February 7, 1941. On June 13, 1941, the appellants through their attorney filed the following 'Notice of Appearance' in the probate proceedings:
On August 15, 1941, the administrator filed a petition for distribution which contained the following: 'Your petitioner is informed and believes and therefore alleges that the following are the persons entitled to share the distribution of this estate: Francesco Spinosa, brother, Lucia Perelli Spinosa, sister, Antonia Fanelli Spinosa, sister.' On January 22, 1942, the probate court filed its decree entitled 'Decree of Settlement of Final Account and Order for Payment of Moneys into State Treasury.' This order recited: 'And it appearing that the affairs of said estate have been finally settled; that no heirs or other claimants thereof or thereto have appeared and established their rights; It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the County Treasurer of the County of Alameda, be and he is hereby directed to forthwith pay into the State Treasury all moneys in his hands belonging to said estate. * * *'
On June 22, 1948 this petition was filed in the Superior Court of Sacramento County to obtain money on deposit with the State Treasurer in the sum of $3,339.21.
The judgment against petitioners was based upon the following conclusions of law:
Appellants first contend that the order of the probate court did not adjudicate the rights of petitioners, or vest any interest in the funds in the state of California. Appellants refer to the title of the decree which states: 'Order for Payment of Moneys into State Treasury.' It is next argued that the words of the order, 'pay into' do not denote a passage of title to the state. Appellants point out that under section 1147 of the Probate Code, the public administrator is required to deposit all funds with the County Treasurer; that at the end of administration, the County Treasurer, if the money is not distributed to known heirs, is authorized to deposit the same with the state. Appellants cite Estate of Miner, 143 Cal. 194, 76 P. 968, 969, for the proposition that the words 'pay into' do not vest any interest in the state. In that case the decree recited: 'The affairs of the estate of James Miner, deceased, having been finally settled, and there being no heirs or other claimants thereof, it is order that the county treasurer of this city and county forthwith pay into the state treasury all moneys and effects in his hands belonging to said estate.' It was held that: 'After hearing further argument, and a re-examination of the case, we have arrived at the conclusion that the final order of the probate court did not operate to vest the title to the fund, so deposited in the state treasury, in the state, as upon a decree in an action brought to escheat the same.'
Respondent in arguing that the decree of the probate court is res judicata points out that petitioners appeared in the probate proceedings; that the petition for distribution named the petitioners as heirs; and that, however, the court found that no heirs had appeared and established their claim. Respondent concludes that this finding is an adjudication that the petitioners were not entitled to share in the estate. In arguing that the decree of the probate court was a decree of distribution it is stated that the court had before it 'a petition for distribution,' and having found that heirs had not proved their claim, ordered the estate paid to the state.
The general rule as to the doctrine of res adjudicata is well expressed in 30 Am.Jur., secs. 161 and 162, pages 908, 909:
And in Guardianship of Di Carlo, 3 Cal.2d 225, at page 234, 44 P.2d 562, 566, 99 A.L.R. 990, the court said:
We are unable to agree with respondent's contention that the 'Decree of Settlement of Final Account and Order for Payment of Moneys into State Treasury,' filed by the Probate Court on January 22, 1942, was res adjudicata upon the question that appellants were not the heirs of Vito Madio Spinosa. The exact language in the order was 'That no heirs or other claimants thereof or thereto have appeared and established their rights.' This language must be considered in the light of, and in connection with, the circumstances as they existed at that time. The administrator had on August 18, 1941, filed a petition for distribution in which he alleged that appellants were the persons entitled to share in the distribution of the estate. This petition was not heard until January 22, 1942. In the meantime, on December 11, 1941, the United States declared war upon Italy, Joint Res. Dec. 11, 1941, c. 565, 55 Stat. 797, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix note preceding section 1. Of this we can take judicial notice. Code Civ.Proc. sec. 1875, subds. 2, 3; 10 Cal.Jur., Evidence, sec. 27, p. 699. Upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Estate of Horman, In re
...subject to tolling under appropriate circumstances. (Estate of Caravas, supra, 40 Cal.2d 33, 41-42, 250 P.2d 593; Estate v. Spinosa, 117 Cal.App.2d 364, 370-372, 255 P.2d 843.) The question remains, however, whether on the facts of the instant case, the court below was justified in finding ......
-
Estate of Horman
...to tolling under appropriate circumstances. (Estate of Caravas, Supra, 40 Cal.2d 33, 41--42, 250 P.2d 593; Estate of Spinosa, 117 Cal.App.2d 364, 370--372, 255 P.2d 843.) The question remains, however, whether on the facts of the instant case, the court below was justified in finding the pe......
-
Nevarov v. Caldwell
... ... the will annexed and brought an action against the Bank of America to recover the deposited money upon the ground that it was indebted to the estate in that amount because the deposit was paid out without any authorization from Mrs. Sather. The Supreme Court, affirming a judgment for defendant, ... ...
-
Estate of Tischler
...Co. v. Cranston (1962) 58 Cal.2d 462, 463, 24 Cal.Rptr. 851, 374 P.2d 819.) Escheat of estates is not favored. (Estate of Spinosa, Supra, 117 Cal.App.2d 364, 372, 255 P.2d 843.) The order denying distribution to appellant is reversed, with directions to enter an order for distribution of th......