IN RE: Diane MARSHALL'S GUARDIANSHIP.

Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

IN RE: Diane MARSHALL'S GUARDIANSHIP. Margaret DUPRAY, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Lorraine Bridges MARSHALL, Contestant and Respondent, Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles, Guardian of the Estate of Diane Marshall, a Minor and Respondent.

Civ. 19968.

Decided: May 12, 1954

George L. Hampton, Van Nuys, for appellant Dupray. Le Sage & Bowman, Pasadena, for respondent Marshall. Charles E. Quirollo, Beverly Hills, for Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles.

In the opinion, Cal.App., 269 P.2d 160, we stated that trial court found that Margaret is now a fit and proper person and is maintaining a fit and proper home, but that she is not a fit or proper person to have the custody of Diane. In Margaret's petition for rehearing it is said that this was an incorrect statement of the finding. Counsel is in error. Margaret, in paragraph XV of her petition to terminate the guardianship of Diane, alleged that she is a fit and proper person to have the custody of Diane. The court found that the allegations of paragraph XV ‘of said petition are not true, except that petitioner is now a fit and proper person and is maintaining a fit and proper home.’ The finding that the allegations of paragraph XV are not true except as stated is necessarily a finding that Margaret is not a fit or proper person to have the custody of Diane. We must assume that in stating the exception the court intended precisely what is written and nothing more.

Rehearing denied.

PER CURIAM.

Copied to clipboard