[2] There having been no appeal from that preliminary decree of distribution, it became final and controls the disposition of all the property distributed to the trustees under its terms. ( Stevens v. Torregano (1961) 192 Cal.App.2d 105, 116 [ 13 Cal.Rptr. 604]; Estate of O'Connor (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 187, 193 [ 322 P.2d 616]; Estate of Weinreich (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 303, 305 [ 280 P.2d 499].) [1b] The 1962 decree did not leave the names of the persons and the proportionate parts of the estate to which each was entitled undetermined.
provisions of the Probate Code restricting charitable bequests to one-third of the estate and erroneously held all the provisions of the trust to be valid. It is settled, however, that, once final, an erroneous decree of distribution, like any other erroneous judgment, is as conclusive as a decree that contains no error" (p. 432). (Also see Estate of Van Deusen, supra, 30 Cal.2d 285 [ 182 P.2d 565]; Federal Farm Mtg. Corp. v. Sandberg, 35 Cal.2d 1 [ 215 P.2d 721]; McLellan v. McLellan, 17 Cal.2d 552 [ 110 P.2d 1034]; Carr v. Bank of America, 11 Cal.2d 366 [ 79 P.2d 1096, 116 A.L.R. 1282]; Estate of McLellan, 8 Cal.2d 49 [ 63 P.2d 1120]; Society of Cal. Pioneers v. McElroy, 63 Cal.App.2d 332 [ 146 P.2d 962]; Estate of Lingg, 71 Cal.App.2d 403 [ 162 P.2d 707]; Howe v. Brock, 86 Cal.App.2d 271 [ 194 P.2d 762]; Estate of Cecala, 104 Cal.App.2d 526 [ 232 P.2d 48]; Estate of Tynan, 129 Cal.App.2d 364 [ 276 P.2d 809]; Estate of Bodger, 130 Cal.App.2d 416 [ 279 P.2d 61]; Estate of Weinreich, 131 Cal.App.2d 303 [ 280 P.2d 499]; Estate of Nash, 132 Cal.App.2d 233 [ 282 P.2d 184].) "`By giving the notice prescribed by the statute, the entire world is called before the court, and the court acquires jurisdiction over all persons for the purpose of determining their rights to any portion of the estate, and every person who may assert any right or interest therein is required to present his claim to the court for its determination.
Where the corpus has been invaded, and no trust estate remains, the trust is said to have been exhausted. (See Thomas v. Gustafson (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 34, 38; see also In re Estate of Weinreich (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 303, 306.) After its exhaustion in 1998, the Family Trust no longer existed.