Opinion
Page 108a
97 Cal.App.4th 108a Estate of ARTHUR PATRICK FORD, Deceased. TERROLD BEAN, Claimant and Appellant, v. JOHN J. FORD et al., Objectors and Respondents. A094755. California Court of Appeal, First District, Second Division March 12, 2002[REVIEW GRANTED BY CAL. SUPREME COURT]
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on February 21, 2002, 96 Cal.App.4th 386; 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 858 be modified as follows:
1. On page 2, in the first sentence of the third full paragraph [96 Cal.App.4th 389, 4th par., “1999” should be changed to “1989”.
2. On page 3, that part of the second full paragraph [96 Cal.App.4th 390, 2d par.] beginning with the words “The nephew” in the fourth line thereof and continuing to the end of that paragraph, should be deleted and replaced with the following: “On June 29, 2000, both Malpassi and Ford’s nephew filed petitions for letters of administration. The nephew’s petition listed only himself as Ford’s heir, while Malpassi’s listed the nephew, Ford’s niece’s three sons, and Bean as potential heirs. (The nephew was apparently under the impression that his sister was deceased, and had so advised Malpassi’s counsel.) On July 31, 2000, the probate court appointed Malpassi special administrator. On August 7, 2000, the nephew filed a petition to determine heirship ( [Prob Code, section 11700] ), this time listing both himself and his sister as Ford’s heirs. On October 4, 2000, Bean filed a ‘Statement of Interest,’ claiming to be entitled to distribution of Ford’s entire estate based on both foster child heirship (section 6454) and the doctrine of equitable adoption. (section 6455.)”
(Footnote 1 remains unchanged from the original opinion.)
3. These changes do not effect a change in the judgment. The Petition for Rehearing is denied.