Estate of Mills

California Court of Appeal

Estate of Mills

243 P.2d 889, 111 Cal. App. 2d 83, 1952 Cal. App. LEXIS 1619

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 14, 1952

DocketCiv. 15379

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 243 P.2d 889 (Estate of Mills) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estate of Mills, 243 P.2d 889, 111 Cal. App. 2d 83, 1952 Cal. App. LEXIS 1619 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

DOOLING, J.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal from an order settling an account and allowing certain fees for extraordinary services. A minute order was entered in the matter on December 21, 1951 and a more formal written order signed by the judge on December 27. The minute order contained no direction for a written order and the movant asserts that under rule 2 (b) (2), Rules on Appeal, the minute order is the appealable order in which event the notice of appeal filed on February 25 was not in time.

It is settled that under rule 2 (b) (2) even though there is no direction in the minute order for the preparation *84 of a written order if the minute order omits any essential portion of a valid order, such as findings when necessary, the minute order is not the appealable order. (Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co., 30 Cal.2d 335, 346-347 [182 P.2d 182]; People v. Gordon, 105 Cal.App.2d 711, 717 [234 P.2d 287] ; Estate of Dow, 91 Cal.App.2d 420, 423 [205 P.2d 698] ; Hirschberg v. Oser, 82 Cal.App.2d 282, 286 [186 P.2d 53].)

In probate proceedings the code expressly requires a finding of the giving of the required notice of the hearing. (Prob. Code, § 1200; Estate of Kauffman, 63 Cal.App.2d 655, 659-660 [147 P.2d 11] ; Estate of Dow, supra, 91 Cal.App. 2d at p. 432.) This essential finding does not appear in the minute order of December 21.

Motion to dismiss denied.

Nourse, P. J., and Goodell, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DOOLING, J.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal from an order settling an account and allowing certain fees for extraordinary services. A minute order was entered in the matter on December 21, 1951 and a more formal written order signed by the judge on December 27. The minute order contained no direction for a written order and the movant asserts that under rule 2 (b) (2), Rules on Appeal, the minute order is the appealable order in which event the notice of appeal filed on February 25 was not in time.

It is settled that under rule 2 (b) (2) even though there is no direction in the minute order for the preparation *84 of a written order if the minute order omits any essential portion of a valid order, such as findings when necessary, the minute order is not the appealable order. (Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co., 30 Cal.2d 335, 346-347 [182 P.2d 182]; People v. Gordon, 105 Cal.App.2d 711, 717 [234 P.2d 287] ; Estate of Dow, 91 Cal.App.2d 420, 423 [205 P.2d 698] ; Hirschberg v. Oser, 82 Cal.App.2d 282, 286 [186 P.2d 53].)

In probate proceedings the code expressly requires a finding of the giving of the required notice of the hearing. (Prob. Code, § 1200; Estate of Kauffman, 63 Cal.App.2d 655, 659-660 [147 P.2d 11] ; Estate of Dow, supra, 91 Cal.App. 2d at p. 432.) This essential finding does not appear in the minute order of December 21.

Motion to dismiss denied.

Nourse, P. J., and Goodell, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 P.2d 889, 111 Cal. App. 2d 83, 1952 Cal. App. LEXIS 1619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-mills-calctapp-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack