Estate of Selb

13 Citing cases

  1. Estate of Trissel

    208 Cal.App.2d 188 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962)   Cited 2 times

    [2] Under this statute it is settled that a relative of the decedent, even though an heir at law, has no priority if the will effectively disinherits him. ( Estate of Winbigler, 166 Cal. 434 [ 137 P. 1]; Estate of Selb, 93 Cal.App.2d 788 [ 210 P.2d 45].) When William filed his petition to revoke the probate of the will on the grounds of incompetency, fraud and undue influence, he thereby forfeited the provisions made for him in the will.

  2. Estate of Knowlton

    118 Cal.App.2d 374 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953)   Cited 4 times

    [1] Under Probate Code section 422, neither party was entitled to priority. Reliance is placed by appellant on the case of Estate of Selb, 93 Cal.App.2d 788 [ 210 P.2d 45]. The facts of that case, as set out on page 793, are as follows: Decedent had two children who were her only heirs, a son and a daughter.

  3. Estate of Cummings

    23 Cal.App.3d 617 (Cal. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 3 times

    Probate Code section 401 provides in part: "No person is competent to serve as executor . . . who is under the age of majority, convicted of an infamous crime, or adjudged by the court incompetent to execute the duties of the trust by reason of drunkenness, improvidence, or want of understanding or integrity. . . ." Although Cherilyn does not enjoy priority under section 422 ( Estate of Selb (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 788, 791 [ 210 P.2d 45]), she has priority over Covert as the nominee of Ronald (Prob. Code, § 423), who, as we further explain below, is not disqualified. The case of Estate of Sherman (1936) 5 Cal.2d 730 [ 56 P.2d 230], is clearly distinguishable on the facts.

  4. Estate of Wade

    175 Cal.App.2d 687 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)

    Preliminarily it should be noticed that neither petitioner has any direct interest in the estate of Harriet and neither has preference over the other as a matter of law. Phyllis' interest in Harriet's estate is a derivative one — as residuary beneficiary of John's last will which has been admitted to probate she would take all of John's estate, except $2,000, and derivatively all of Harriet's estate after it is distributed to the estate of John. Appellants' interest in Harriet's estate is likewise derivative — if they succeed in their contest they would each take $10,000 from John's estate under his previous will, but in no event would they take any part of Harriet's estate directly, although they might take some part of it after its distribution to John's estate. Both appellants and respondent cite and rely upon Estate of Selb, 93 Cal.App.2d 788 [ 210 P.2d 45]. In Selb the testatrix' daughter, who took nothing under her mother's will, and the testatrix' grandson, who took only through his father, who died after the testatrix's death, both sought letters of administration with the will annexed, of the testatrix's estate.

  5. Estate of Stephens

    70 Cal.2d 820 (Cal. 1969)   Cited 1 times

    Once more it was pointed out that although upon the father's death the son might again come into some portion of the mother's estate, this would be as the heir of the father and not as the heir of the mother, and any share he received would be under a decree made in theestate of the father. (See also Estate of Selb (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 788, 791 [ 210 P.2d 45], holding, in reliance on Wakefield and Edson, supra, that a grandson was eliminated as to priority under section 422, as "He would be entitled to succeed under his father, but not under his grandmother, Mrs. Selb, for the reason his father died after his grandmother.") So in the present case, although it appears that Mrs. Field will share in the estate of decedent's mother Olive M. Stephens, including whatever remains of the mother's interest in the decedent's estate after payment of the debts and costs of administration in the estates of both decedent and his mother, it is only through decedent's mother and a decree made in her estate and not as the heir of decedent that any assets of decedent's estate will eventually reach Mrs. Field. Nothing in Estate ofHerriott (1933) 219 Cal. 529 [ 28 P.2d 355], is persuasive to the contrary.

  6. Shoemaker v. Kime (Estate of Quadri)

    2d Civ. B332827 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2024)

    When a decedent dies intestate and is not survived by a spouse or domestic partner, but is survived by children, those children have equal priority for appointment as administrator of the decedent's estate. (§ 8467; Estate of Selb (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 788, 790.) In those circumstances, the court possesses discretion to appoint one or more of the children as administrator.

  7. Estate of Trego

    81 Cal.App.3d 530 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 3 times

    The court has discretionary power to choose between persons equally entitled to administer. (Prob. Code, § 425;Estate of Olcese (1930) 210 Cal. 262 [ 291 P. 193]; Estate of Selb (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 788, 791-792 [ 210 P.2d 45].) Where it appears from the record that appellant and respondents are of the same class, the decision of the trial court is not to be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a showing that the choice reflected an abuse of discretion.

  8. Estate of King

    206 Cal.App.2d 688 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962)   Cited 1 times

    It finds no support in the Probate Code or the cases. What was stated in Estate of Selb, 93 Cal.App.2d 788 [ 210 P.2d 45] by way of dictum is contrary to respondent's position. In the Selb case two people who came within class 10 were seeking letters of administration.

  9. Ordway v. Arata

    150 Cal.App.2d 71 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)   Cited 30 times
    In Ordway, illness of the attorney was only one circumstance the court weighed and in view of the other circumstances — illness and death of plaintiff's husband, relation of the parties, absence of any showing of injury to the defendant, absence of any suggestion of a defense to the action — the case can hardly be read for the view that illness and death of the attorney alone is sufficient excuse for a delay of seven years as in the case before us.

    " See also Estate of Selb, 93 Cal.App.2d 788 [ 210 P.2d 45]. [7a] We have concluded that taking into consideration the facts and circumstances shown by the record in the instant case there was an abuse of discretion in granting the motion to dismiss the action.

  10. Estate of Bertie

    132 Cal.App.2d 522 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)   Cited 3 times

    "When there are several persons equally entitled to administer, the court may grant letters to one or more of them . . ." (Prob. Code, § 425) "The court is thus given an opportunity in such instances to exercise discretion in selecting its appointee." ( Estate of Selb, 93 Cal.App.2d 788, 792 [ 210 P.2d 45].) Therefore, the question for determination on this appeal is whether the trial court's appointment of respondent, instead of appellant, was an abuse of discretion.