Varney

Varney v. Superior Court

Good Law
10 Cal. App. 4th 1092·12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 865·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1280·92 Daily Journal DAR 14763·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8971
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 30, 1992G012658California6,110 words

Opinion

Opinion

Moore, J.

The superior court entered an order under Probate Code section 21320 finding petitioner Dana Varney’s proposed creditor’s claim (§ 9000 et seq.) and petition for the conveyance of real property and the transfer of corporate stock (§ 9860 et seq.) would violate the forfeiture clause of a decedent’s will. Petitioner sought a writ of mandate in this court to vacate the superior court’s order and requested a stay of the expiration of time for filing the creditor’s claim. We granted a stay and issued an alternative writ. The questions presented are whether petitioner has an adequate legal remedy, whether we have jurisdiction to toll the expiration of the time for filing a creditor’s claim and whether the lower court erred by finding petitioner’s proposed actions would constitute contests under the decedent’s will.

Facts

Paul Magdaleno died November 7, 1991. At his death, Magdaleno held title to a home in Irvine and stock in an incorporated business named the Golden Fire Restaurant.

Magdaleno’s will, dated March 7, 1977, was admitted to probate. The will bequeaths a percentage of Magdaleno’s estate to his parents, two sisters, a brother, and his nephews and nieces. The will…

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.