Court Opinion

ID: 9729144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:27:33.996825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:55.616178
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
By petition for rehearing the guardian prays that the case be reversed and remanded to the probate court for a hearing to determine whether payment will reduce the estate to such an extent that the incompetent is likely to become a burden to the community. (See fn. 1 of opinion.) This issue was not raised in the guardian’s answer or else*1066where prior to the petition for rehearing. It, therefore, cannot be considered now. (6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Appeal, § 598, p. 4526.) His contention that he did not know the court was entertaining an application for an order for payment is inconsistent with the stipulation amending the petition to that effect. His complaint that he was denied the right to present evidence can only be viewed in the light of the evidence he offered to produce. It proved to be irrelevant.
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied July 6, 1973. Sullivan, J., did not participate therein.