Robins v. Ferry CA4/3
G051316M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 21, 2016Background
- Decedent Laura Sherman died owning a one-third tenancy-in-common interest in real property; Desert Green claimed an option on that property and asserted creditor status.
- Desert Green petitioned for appointment of an administrator and nominated Joseph P. Ferry; the court appointed Ferry as special administrator (ex parte) and later as full administrator, issuing letters in December 2013.
- Robins (daughter of Laura) filed a motion in September 2014 to set aside/vacate the probate orders appointing Ferry, arguing lack of jurisdiction and other defects; the trial court denied the motion.
- Robins appealed the denial, asserting the appointment was void because (a) no public hearing was held, (b) Laura had a will that should have been probated, and (c) Desert Green/Ferry engaged in fraud by concealing the will.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding the appointment was not void, Robins’ challenges amounted to an improper collateral attack (not preserved by direct appeal), and Robins failed to show extrinsic fraud or facial lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probate court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because there was no public hearing | Robins: appointment void because petition was not called on the record/open hearing absent public hearing | Respondents: local rules permit preapproval; minute order shows petition approved; appointment was proper | Court: no facial defect; jurisdictional facts were established; appointment not void |
| Whether the existence/lodging of a will required postponing appointment and probate of will first | Robins: Laura’s will had been lodged and should control; court should have resolved will first | Respondents: petition alleged uncertainty about testamentary instruments; Robins failed to file a probate petition or timely object | Court: factual posture differs from Edwards; Robins’ failure to seek probate or appeal makes current attack collateral and untimely |
| Whether Robins may collaterally attack letters of administration based on misrepresentation/concealment (fraud) | Robins: Desert Green/Ferry committed fraud by concealing/existing will, so collateral attack is permitted | Respondents: only extrinsic fraud (deprivation of notice/hearing) permits collateral attack after appeal period; alleged concealment was not extrinsic fraud | Court: no extrinsic fraud shown; collateral attack barred by finality rule under probate law |
| Whether Desert Green had standing to petition for appointment | Robins: Desert Green lacked standing | Respondents: creditor is an "interested person" and may petition | Court: Desert Green, as creditor, had standing to file the petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon Peabody LLP v. Superior Court, 230 Cal.App.4th 818 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (distinguishes voidness review and discretionary setting-aside under CCP § 473(d))
- Estate of Lewy, 61 Cal.App.3d 635 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976) (motion to vacate appointment reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Estate of Edwards, 154 Cal. 91 (Cal. 1908) (where a will exists, court generally should allow probate proceedings rather than decide testamentary validity on an administration petition)
- Lane v. Starkey, 59 Cal.App. 140 (Cal. Ct. App. 1922) (letters of administration regular on their face are conclusive on collateral attack)
- Estate of Estrem, 16 Cal.2d 563 (Cal. 1940) (distinguishes extrinsic fraud as ground for collateral attack on probate orders)
- Estate of Buckley, 132 Cal.App.3d 434 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (a defect in fundamental jurisdiction for collateral attack must appear on the face of the order)