Opinion ID: 1436365
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Findings Regarding Specific Items

Text: The probate master found that the Alpine car stereo was a gift from Monge to Blair and that Bowman failed to prove Monge's ownership at the time of his death. This finding is not clearly erroneous as it was supported by Blair's testimony. [5] Blair testified that when Monge sold his Chevy Blazer, he said he was planning on buying a new car and a new stereo system ... and he said `I want to put this in your truck for you.' Blair also testified that Monge showed the installed car stereo to his friends and said Look what I did for my girlfriend. Therefore, the probate master's finding that Bowman failed to prove ownership was not clearly erroneous. [6]
The probate master found that Blair bought the sleeper cover on an installment basis and that although Monge paid one installment payment toward Blair's balance, he never owned or claimed an ownership interest in the cover and never requested or expected repayment from Blair for his contribution. Blair testified that she negotiated the installment contract with the seller and made three installment payments, with the rest to come out of her paychecks in time. Testimony of the seller contradicted Blair's testimony. It is for the trier of fact to resolve such disputes. Given Blair's testimony, we cannot say that the probate master clearly erred.
The probate master found that Blair did not know the current whereabouts of Monge's rally type steering wheel, and that although Monge purchased and installed a similar steering wheel in Blair's truck, Bowman did not establish Monge's ownership of the disputed steering wheel. This finding is not clearly erroneous as Blair testified that Monge installed the similar steering wheel in her truck, which Monge drove when he was in town, and that Monge never requested that steering wheel be removed from her truck.
The probate master found that Monge purchased the jet ski and gave it to Blair as a birthday present. This finding is not clearly erroneous as Blair and a number of other witnesses testified that Monge presented the jet ski to Blair as a gift at her birthday party.
The probate master found that Blair did not assert an ownership interest in the Nakamichi mini receiver, tape and compact disc player, two two-way speakers and a sub woofer, and had no knowledge of their whereabouts, and that Bowman had not established that the items were in Blair's possession or control. This finding is not clearly erroneous as Blair testified that she had no knowledge whatsoever of any Nakamichi stereo system and claimed no ownership interest in it. The probate master also appropriately ordered Blair to return those items to Bowman if Blair were to discover them among her possessions. With regard to the two two-way speakers, the probate master erroneously grouped these speakers with the Nakamichi stereo system instead of with the Alpine car stereo. [7] However, because the probate master also found that Bowman failed to prove Monge's ownership of the Alpine car stereo at the time of his death, and because the two disputed speakers were part of the car stereo system, the probate master necessarily must have found also that Bowman did not prove ownership of the two two-way speakers. Thus, we affirm the probate master's conclusion that Bowman is not entitled to any of the stereo system components.
The probate master found that Blair knew of only one leather jacket. Blair testified that Monge had told her that it had been stolen after he loaned it to a friend. No evidence contradicted that testimony. Consequently the finding was not clearly erroneous. The probate master correctly concluded that Bowman had not proven that Blair had possession of either jacket. This finding is not clearly erroneous as Blair's testimony supports the court's finding. Further, the master appropriately ordered Blair to deliver the jackets to Bowman in the event she learned of their whereabouts (i.e., in the event they ever came into her possession).
The probate master found that Blair did not have possession of any of Monge's personal clothing or his tennis shoes. Given the testimony of Blair and her father, this finding is not clearly erroneous.
The disputed amount of $1,450 concerned a car repair bill paid by Monge for purchase and installation of a rebuilt engine in Blair's pickup truck. The probate master found that Monge, who had occasionally used Blair's pickup truck, was driving the truck when the replaced engine blew up and that the $1,450 was not a loan. Those findings are not clearly erroneous. Although the evidence on this dispute is sparse, it did not require a contrary finding. [8] The court did not err in concluding that Bowman failed to prove that the $1,450 Monge paid toward the repair of the truck was a loan.
The probate master found that Bowman withdrew her claim regarding the emerald necklace, rubies and diamond ring, and acknowledged that these items were not part of the estate. Bowman does not contest this finding.