Court Opinion

ID: 9454878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:02:43.973006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:21.656028
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Mrs. Saville, has called our attention to a statement appearing in decisions of Courts of Appeals of California, and argues that it is in conflict with our conclusion with respect to the effect of the conservatorship on capacity to transfer property (stated in the last paragraph of part 1 of our opinion). In Schuck v. Myers 1 the court said: “The mere fact that a conservator is appointed is not a determination that the conservatee is in any wise ‘insane or incompetent.’ ” The Schuck statement is quoted in In re Guardianship of Christiansen2 and in Hillman v. Stults.3
Schuck dealt with competency of a conservatee to bring an action for divorce and her capacity to testify. The objections were apparently raised after trial, and the court noted that the conservator-ship proceedings were not part of the record.
Christiansen dealt with the propriety, in guardianship, of a court authorization to make a gift, and the Schuck quotation was included in a footnote, following the court’s observation that it was unnecessary to determine the principles which would control a conservatorship.
Hillman dealt with appointment of a conservator for a person imprisoned for crime. The court held that “Conservatorship is a reasonable means for the conservation of the property of inmates or parolees when no other means are available.” It noted that the conservatorship “statute may protect individuals *273who are handicapped by disabilities other than mental.” The quotation from Schuck was inserted at that point.
We are mindful of our duty to apply the law as stated by California courts, but none of the three cases just cited dealt squarely with the effect of a conservatorship based on grounds identical to incompetency.
In any event, even if the conclusion we reached in part 1 were disregarded, the conclusion reached in part 2 with respect to undue influence would sustain the judgment. Mrs. Saville has not persuaded us of any reason to grant rehearing with respect to that point.
The petition for rehearing is denied.

. (2d dist., div. 2, 1965), 233 Cal.App.2d 151, 43 Cal.Rptr. 215, 217.

. (1st dist., div. 1, 1967), 248 Cal.App.2d 398, 56 Cal.Rptr. 505, 515, note 8.

. (2d dist., div. 2, 1968), 263 Cal.App.2d 848, 70 Cal.Rptr. 295, 310.