IN RE: REINHERTZ' ESTATE. (1947)

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

IN RE: REINHERTZ' ESTATE. LEVE v. REINHERTZ.

Civ. 13386.

Decided: November 25, 1947

A. Don Duncan, of San Francisco, for appellant. G. C. Ringole, of San Francisco, for respondent.

On petition for rehearing respondent questions the correctness of our construction of Probate Code, section 753 as authorizing a distribution to appellant by way of contribution of a portion of the property remaining in the estate. We can place no other reasonable construction on the language of the section: ‘The court * * * must * * * decree the amount each person shall contribute, and reserve the same from his distributive share for the purpose of such contribution.’

In Re Estate of Stevens, 27 Cal.2d 108, 118, 162 P.2d 918, 923, the court said (referring to this section): ‘If a right of contribution is eventually established, the total of the assets remaining in the estate from which contribution would be made should presumably be greater than if a compromise had not been effected, and thus the appellant's ultimate distributive share of the estate will be greater.’

Respondent's petition for rehearing is denied.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network