Court Opinion

ID: 9625290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:35:11.852829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:22:13.908090
License: Public Domain

DOOLING, J.
I dissent. The order appealed from purports to adjudicate title between the respondent, Aldo Perrero, and the beneficiaries of an insurance policy issued by Bankers Life Company on the life of the decedent. It determines that the proceeds belong to respondent and directs that they be applied toward the purchase price of decedent’s interest in the business.
The probate court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of this part of the order and the order to this extent is void. (Capital Bond etc. Co. v. Hood, 218 Cal. 729 [24 P.2d 765]; Rogers v. Cady, 104 Cal. 288 [38 P. 81, 43 Am. St.Rep. 100]; Burnett v. Hoover Ball & Bearing Co., 51 Cal.App.2d 613 [125 P.2d 572]; In re Keck, 75 Cal.App.2d 846 [171 P.2d 933]; 15 Cal.Jur., Judgments, § 141, p. 52.) Being void the order can be attacked at any time by the beneficiaries. (Andrews v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.2d 208, 214-215 [174 P.2d 313]; Estate of Pusey, 180 Cal. 368, 374-375 [181 P. 648].)
The proceeds of the insurance policy are no part of the estate and the probate court has attempted to adjudicate title to property to which the estate has, and makes, no claim. Since the court in probate has no jurisdiction of this property it clearly has no jurisdiction to adjudicate title to it. Even where the estate claims title its power to adjudicate adverse claims to property is limited to claims by an executor or administrator and a few other special cases and it cannot generally adjudicate the adverse claims of others. (Central Bank v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.2d 10 [285 P.2d 906], collecting and reviewing the authorities at pp. 15-17.)
*484- It is true that the minor beneficiaries have not appealed. They ,ar.e-not. hound to do so but can. attack the order as void whenever it is attempted, to .be enforced against them. Even, the affirmance on appeal on other grounds does not validate an order void on its face. (Andrews v. Superior Court, supra, 29 Cal.2d 208; Pioneer Land. Co. v. Maddux, 109 Cal. 633 [42 P. 295, 50 Am.St.Rep. 67] ; Pennell v. Superior Court) 87 Cal.App. 375 [262 P. 48]; In re Cavitt, 47 Cal.App.2d 698 [118 P.2d 846]; 15 Cal.Jur., Judgments, § 140, p. 51, note 3.) The adjudication of .jurisdiction .on this appeal by others, in which- the minor, beneficiaries have not joined, could not bind them.
Since the appellants here have an interest in the estate they are adversely affected by the order that the proceeds of the policy are applicable to the purchase price. They did not raise- this point until oral, argument hut it would only promote future litigation to ignore it since the beneficiaries can still.attack the order at any time thereby confusing the rights of the parties under it. "
A petition for a rehearing was denied Jiily 20, 1956.