Vesel

Vesel v. Martin

Good Law
122 Cal. Rptr. 754·14 Cal. 3d 831·1975 Cal. LEXIS 323·537 P.2d 874
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 24, 1975L.A. No. 30405California3,701 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Richardson, J.

In this probate controversy, a hearing was granted by this court, after decision by the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, for the purpose of giving further study to the problems presented. After such study, we have concluded that the portion of Justice Kaufman’s opinion for the Court of Appeal, dealing *834 with the interplay of Probate Code sections 228, 230 and 296.4 correctly treats and disposes of the issues involved, and, except for discussion of the rights of a nonappealing party, Evelyn Schumacher, set forth at the conclusion hereof, we adopt it as and for the opinion of this court. Such opinion (with appropriate deletions and additions as indicated) is as follows: *

Petitioner, Florence Vesel, filed a petition for determination of heirship in the estate of Minnie S. McDill. She appeals from a judgment which ordered the distribution of the estate one-half to the petitioner and her sister, blood nieces of the decedent, and one-half to the blood cousins of the decedent’s predeceased spouse, George W. McDill.

The trial below was based on stipulated facts. Petitioner and her sister, Evelyn Schumacher, are the issue of the decedent’s…

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.