Mannheim v. Superior Court
3 Cal. 3d 678 ·
Supreme Court of California · Filed
Published · citable
Cited by 5
Holding
The court held that a 1969 amendment to Probate Code section 228, which incorporated the anti-escheat distribution scheme from section 296.4, applied retroactively to the estate of Janet Nieto because the property had not yet vested absolutely or permanently escheated to the state on the amendment’s effective date, and that such retroactive application did not constitute an unconstitutional gift of public funds since the state’s interest in the estate remained inchoate until a judicial decree of distribution.
Statutes construed
- CCP § 1085
- CCP § 1086
- CCP § 1300
- CCP § 1441
- CCP § 1908
- CCP § 8
- CIV § 1386
- PROB § 1027
- PROB § 228
- PROB § 231
Cited by (5)
- Estate of ROSE M. JOHNSON, Deceased. KENNETH MARGOLIS-JOHNSON, as Special Administrator, etc., Petitioner and Respondent, v. OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant (1984) 162 Cal. App. 3d 917
- MICHAEL J. GERTNER, as Executor, etc., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; VW CREDIT, INC., Real Party in Interest (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 927
- CAROLINE B. BOGERT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GRAY DAVIS, as State Controller, etc., Defendant and Respondent (1989) 214 Cal. App. 3d 774
- JOSEPH A. PARAGE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARIE JEANNE COUEDEL, Defendant and Respondent (1997) 60 Cal. App. 2d 1037
- Estate of JOHN JAMES McGUIGAN, Deceased. JUDITH A. DESMOND, Petitioner and Respondent, v. KATHLEEN CONNELL, as State Controller, etc., Claimant; LINDA GEITNER, Movant and Appellant (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 639