Medeiros v. Silva

283 P.2d 50, 132 Cal. App. 2d 771, 1955 Cal. App. LEXIS 2255
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedMay 6, 1955
DocketCiv. No. 8597
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 283 P.2d 50 (Medeiros v. Silva) 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
Medeiros v. Silva, 283 P.2d 50, 132 Cal. App. 2d 771, 1955 Cal. App. LEXIS 2255 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955).

Opinion

SCHOTTKY, J.

Manuel Medeiros died on March 20, 1949, leaving surviving as heirs at law his wife, Mary Medeiros, and four children by a former marriage, Manuel Medeiros, Jr., Mamie P. Cotta, John F. Medeiros and Annie Silva. On March 21, 1949, a deed of gift executed by Manuel Medeiros on February 16, 1942, was recorded, said deed naming Annie Silva as grantee and describing approximately 36 acres of land in Stanislaus County.

On April 9, 1949, John F. Medeiros filed a petition for the probate of decedent’s will, said will having been executed on March 2, 1949. Said will contained a bequest to the wife, Mary Medeiros, of money in bank and certain personal property, but with the following provision:

“. . . It is expressly specified herein that the foregoing [772]*772bequest to my wife shall be in lieu of any rights that my said wife, Mary, shall have in my possessions and to my property by way of homestead rights, by way of community property rights, as my widow or otherwise, or by way of any other claim whatsoever upon my estate, and in case any such rights are claimed by my said wife, all property bequeathed to her herein shall become part of the residue of my estate and shall go to my said children, John F. Medeiros, Annie Silva and Mamie P. Cotta, share and share alike. ’ ’

Said will also provided:

“I give and devise all real property, together with any personal property not otherwise disposed of herein, which I may own or possess at the date of my death to my son, John F. Medeiros; my daughter, Annie Silva, and my daughter, Mamie P. Cotta, in equal shares of one-third to each of said children.”

On April 29, 1949, a contest of said will was filed by the surviving wife, Mary Medeiros, and Manuel Medeiros, Jr., and thereafter, on May 9,1949, Mamie P. Cotta was appointed special administratrix with general powers.

On November 12, 1949, plaintiff, Mary Medeiros, filed the instant action against Annie Silva, Mamie P. Cotta, as special administratrix of the estate of Manuel Medeiros, deceased, and John F. Medeiros, as defendants, to set aside the said deed of February 16, 1942, and to have it adjudged that she was the owner of the real property described therein, alleging that said real property was the community property of deceased and plaintiff; that said deceased had executed said deed without her knowledge and consent; and that there was no consideration for said deed.

On March 11, 1950, an answer and cross-complaint was filed by Annie Silva, Mamie P. Cotta, as special administratrix of the estate of decedent, and John F. Medeiros, denying the material allegations of the complaint and alleging that on February 16, 1942, the real property in controversy was conveyed to Annie Silva and that she has ever since been the owner thereof.

On August 4, 1950, Mary Medeiros and Manuel Medeiros, Jr., filed a dismissal of the will contest theretofore filed by them. On August 8, 1950, Mamie P. Cotta, as special administratrix, filed an inventory and appraisement of the property of the estate of said decedent, which inventory did not include as property of the estate the real property described in said deed. On August 15, 1950, the will of decedent was admitted [773]*773to probate and letters testamentary were issued to John F. Medeiros. On August 25,1950, John F. Medeiros, as executor, filed his first and final account and report and petition for distribution, and on September 6, 1950, a decree of distribution was made in the matter of the estate of Manuel Medeiros, deceased. By the terms of the decree appellant is to receive certain personal property, the children are to receive certain other minor items, and the decree states that any and all real property owned by the deceased at the time of his death, whether now known or hereafter discovered, shall be distributed in equal shares to John F. Medeiros, Annie Silva and Mamie P. Cotta.

On October 1, 1951, respondents Annie Silva and John F. Medeiros were by order of court permitted to file an amended answer and cross-complaint which, in addition to the denials and allegations of their original answer and cross-complaint, alleged as additional defenses:

First: That said widow, appellant herein, never at any time made an election of any kind claiming a community interest instead of the bequest made to her under the provisions of the will; that she never at any time appeared in the proceedings of the estate claiming that any part of the property belonged to her as community property and that the same should not be disposed of by decree of distribution in accordance with the terms of the will of the deceased; and that the decree had become final and was res adjudicata on the issues raised in the pleadings in the action; and
Second: That all the issues involved in plaintiff’s complaint had been previously adjudicated in the matter of the estate of Manuel Medeiros, deceased, and that the decree of distribution therein conclusively adjudicated all issues in appellant’s complaint.

Plaintiff’s demurrer to said special defenses was overruled and an answer to the amended cross-complaint was filed. Thereafter a trial was had solely on the special defenses and the court made the following findings of fact, among others:

First: That appellant,-Mary Medeiros, never at any time in the proceedings of the said estate made an election of any kind claiming a community interest instead of the bequest made to her under the provisions of the will of the deceased and that she never in the estate proceedings claimed that any of the property of said deceased belonged to her as community property and that the same should not be disposed [774]*774of by decree of distribution in accordance with the terms of the will of the deceased.
Second: That the decree of distribution in the matter of the estate of Manuel Medeiros is res adjudicata on the pleadings in the action of appellant, Mary Medeiros, against respondents, Mamie P. Cotta and John F. Medeiros, and could not be raised in any collateral proceedings.
Third: That the decree of distribution conclusively adjudicated the rights of the parties in the property belonging to Manuel Medeiros, deceased.
Fourth: That decedent, Manuel Medeiros, transferred the property described in plaintiff’s complaint and in said deed to respondent, Annie Silva, and that said Annie Silva was the owner in fee simple of the real property therein described.
Fifth: That appellant, Mary Medeiros, had no interest in the real property described in said deed and in said complaint.

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

Related

Opinion No.
Arkansas Attorney General Reports, 2005
Medeiros v. Medeiros
291 P.2d 142 (California Court of Appeal, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
283 P.2d 50, 132 Cal. App. 2d 771, 1955 Cal. App. LEXIS 2255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medeiros-v-silva-calctapp-1955.