Westphal v. Westphal
20 Cal. 2d 393 ·
Supreme Court of California · Filed
Published · citable
Cited by 3
Holding
The court held that a final decree of distribution is not subject to collateral attack on grounds of extrinsic fraud when the complaining parties, though holding contingent future interests, are presumed to have received proper notice of the probate proceedings and failed to allege they were deprived of an opportunity to participate and present their claims to the court.
Statutes construed
- PROB ยง 1242
Cited by (3)
- NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; SHANT MARDIROSIAN, a Minor, Real Party in Interest (1986) 184 Cal. App. 3d 948
- GLADYS TORREGANO STEVENS, Appellant, v. ALFRED TORREGANO, Respondent (1961) 192 Cal. App. 2d 105
- MICHAEL GERRARD GIBBONS, a Minor, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent (1969) 274 Cal. App. 2d 819