Estate of Shellenbarger

One hundred years ago our Supreme Court warned that “ ‘[succession to estates is purely a matter of statutory regulation, which cannot be changed by courts’ ” and that “ ‘[i]t is vain to argue against the injustice of the rule ....’” (Estate of De Cigaran (1907) 150 Cal. 682, 688 [ 89 P. 833 ].) This rule of law, i.e., strict adherence to the laws of succession, has not changed. (See Estate of Griswold (2001) 25 Cal.4th 904, 924 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 165 , 24 P.3d 1191 ].) The Court of Appeal follows the law as declared by our California Supreme Court even if we think that the rule of law is unwise or the result of the application of the rule is unfair. (See, e.g., Dabney v. Dabney (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 379, 384 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 917 ] (cone. opn. of Yegan, J.).) Here it is unfair that father should reap a financial windfall after the death of his son. This is so because father never even saw his son for the 42 years he lived. We hold that a probate court may not, on principles of equity, disinherit a natural parent who abandons a child who later dies intestate. (Prob. Code, § 6400.)

Laura A. Barnes, administrator of the estate of Lesley Loren Shellenbarger, appeals from an…