Court Opinion

ID: 9595592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:42:02.152831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:29.081391
License: Public Domain

WINANS, Justice
(concurring in result).
I am concurring in the result in the case of Estate of Hofer. I think the basis for the opinion which should go out of this Court is “estoppel” and I would bottom the opinion solely on that issue.
The majority opinion asserts that this Court must first determine if the order appointing Hamre is void, then the opinion is weakened by stating that “Ella correctly contends that the order revoking her letters testamentary was not valid * * Now if Ella correctly makes that contention, that ends the case. I don’t think her contention is correct and I would not get into it. I would simply say she is estopped to make such a contention. I am in some doubt as to whether we should advise a lower court to consider entry of an order nunc pro tunc. If we say that Hamre is the duly appointed administrator, I see no need for a nunc pro tunc order and if he isn’t acting with jurisdiction, a nunc pro tunc order would cure nothing.