Court Opinion

ID: 9633576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:52:49.681642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:37.755713
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
*251Morton A. Winkel of Reinhardt, Coblens & Stoll, Portland, for the petitioner.
No appearance contra.
Before McAllister, Chief Justice, and Rossman, Perry, Sloan, O’Connell, G-oodwin and Denecke, Justices.
O’CONNELL, J.
In our original opinion we stated that “[t]he trial court entered a decree allowing the final account.” As plaintiff points out in his petition for rehearing, that decree was not entered. Therefore, the presumption created by ORS 117.630 and relied upon in the *252original opinion does not arise. But even without the benefit of the statutory presumption the account filed by the administrator of the estate was sufficient to constitute a final account. The trial judge in the present case (who also sat in probate in the administration of this estate) was of the opinion that the account constituted a final account. He rejected plaintiff’s request for a finding of fact and conclusion of law to the effect that the account filed was not a final account. Therefore, the judgment in this case was a judicial recognition that the account qualified as a final account. In our opinion that conclusion was not rebutted by the evidence adduced by plaintiff purporting to show that the account did not satisfy the requirement for a final account.
The other grounds for the petition for rehearing are without merit.
The petition is denied.