Abels v. Frey
126 Cal. App. 48 ·
California Court of Appeal · Filed
Published · citable
Cited by 4
Holding
The court held that the allegations in the second amended complaint failed to state a cause of action for extrinsic fraud, as the purported misrepresentations regarding probate law constituted intrinsic rather than collateral fraud, and that the probate court's final decree of distribution was thus immune from collateral attack.
Cited by (4)
- WALTER W. SCHAFFER et al., Appellants, v. AMERICAN TRUST COMPANY, as Executor, etc., Respondent (1958) 164 Cal. App. 2d 653
- GLADYS TORREGANO STEVENS, Appellant, v. ALFRED TORREGANO, Respondent (1961) 192 Cal. App. 2d 105
- Estate of CONRAD NICHOLSON HILTON, Deceased. MYRON E. HARPOLE et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. CONRAD N. HILTON FOUNDATION, Objector and Appellant; DANIEL E. LUNGREN, as Attorney General, etc., Objector and Respondent (1996) 44 Cal. App. 4th 890
- JOSEPH A. PARAGE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARIE JEANNE COUEDEL, Defendant and Respondent (1997) 60 Cal. App. 2d 1037