Legal Opinion · Dissent

Nathanson v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided August 19, 1974No. L.A. 30174Published

1DissentTobriner, J.

I dissent. The majority opinion holds that no document can qualify as a claim in probate — even as a defective claim whose defects can be cured by later amendment — unless it takes the form of a demand upon the probate estate and has a certain independent existence as a proceeding before the probate court. The controlling case law is to the contrary.

The leading case is United States Gypsum Co. v. Shaffer (1936) 7 Cal.2d 454 [60 P.2d 998]. Plaintiff obtained a judgment against Hart, who appealed and filed a bond to stay execution of judgment. Hart died pending the appeal, but defendants, his…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States Gypsum Co. v. ShafferCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Bernstein v. RubinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  3. Estate of VoseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  4. Bank of Am. Nat'l Tr. & Sav. Ass'n v. GeslerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API