In Re Estate and Guardianship of Oelerich

Utah Supreme Court

In Re Estate and Guardianship of Oelerich

393 P.2d 799, 15 Utah 2d 409, 1964 Utah LEXIS 281

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 8, 1964

Docket10005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 393 P.2d 799 (In Re Estate and Guardianship of Oelerich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Estate and Guardianship of Oelerich, 393 P.2d 799, 15 Utah 2d 409, 1964 Utah LEXIS 281 (Utah 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing the petition for appointment of a guardian of the estate and person of respondent, Joan Oelerich, alleged to be incompetent.

Helen D. Oelerich, mother of respondent, petitioned the court to appoint Walker Bank and Trust Company guardian of respondent’s estate and person, alleging that said respondent was incompetent. The court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner had not been diligent in proceeding with the action, and that a trust agreement had been executed whereby the First National Bank of Chicago had been appointed trustee of respondent’s property received from her father’s estate. The order recited that the dismissal was “not on the merits” and was granted without any determination of the incompetency of respondent.

Appellant urges that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition and in failing to determine the competency of the respondent.

The record shows that the issue of respondent’s competency was not before the court at the hearing when the petition was dismissed, therefore, appellant’s argument that the court erred in not determining the competency of the respondent is without merit. Appellant also contends that the court erred in dismissing the petition because a trust agreement had been entered into and petitioner was not diligent in proceeding with the action.. As to these contentions, we held in Charlton v. Hackett, 11 Utah 2d 389, 360 P.2d 176, that appellant has the burden of showing error which will overcome the presumption of validity of the trial court’s findings and judgment. The appellant here has failed to show error which would destroy this presumption.

Judgment affirmed. Costs to respondent.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing the petition for appointment of a guardian of the estate and person of respondent, Joan Oelerich, alleged to be incompetent.

Helen D. Oelerich, mother of respondent, petitioned the court to appoint Walker Bank and Trust Company guardian of respondent’s estate and person, alleging that said respondent was incompetent. The court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner had not been diligent in proceeding with the action, and that a trust agreement had been executed whereby the First National Bank of Chicago had been appointed trustee of respondent’s property received from her father’s estate. The order recited that the dismissal was “not on the merits” and was granted without any determination of the incompetency of respondent.

Appellant urges that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition and in failing to determine the competency of the respondent.

The record shows that the issue of respondent’s competency was not before the court at the hearing when the petition was dismissed, therefore, appellant’s argument that the court erred in not determining the competency of the respondent is without merit. Appellant also contends that the court erred in dismissing the petition because a trust agreement had been entered into and petitioner was not diligent in proceeding with the action.. As to these contentions, we held in Charlton v. Hackett, 11 Utah 2d 389, 360 P.2d 176, that appellant has the burden of showing error which will overcome the presumption of validity of the trial court’s findings and judgment. The appellant here has failed to show error which would destroy this presumption.

Judgment affirmed. Costs to respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 P.2d 799, 15 Utah 2d 409, 1964 Utah LEXIS 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-and-guardianship-of-oelerich-utah-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack