Estate of Blume

Good Law
241 Cal. App. 2d 496·50 Cal. Rptr. 622
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 14, 196623072California4,863 words

Opinion

Opinion

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, and John E. Barsell, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, for Objector and Appellant.

Bertha Ast and William B. Boone for Claimants and Respondents.

SIMS, J.

The State of California, a claimant to the estate of the decedent under the provisions of section 231 of the Probate Code, [1] has appealed from a judgment (decree determining interests in estate, §§ 1080-1082) which awards all of the estate to respondents, who, as relatives of the previously deceased spouse of the decedent, claim the right to succeed to the estate under the provisions of section 229 [2] because it consists of property which was the separate property of that spouse.

The state contends (1) that one-half of the property was acquired by the decedent by purchase from the heirs of the previously deceased spouse and therefore is not subject to the provisions of section 229; (2) that the deed by which the decedent acquired the foregoing interest also conveyed to her and the heirs of her own separate property any interest which the heirs of her previously deceased spouse might otherwise have in the one-half of the property which she acquired by descent; and (3) that in any event…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.