of Wisner
Filed
9/29/10 Estate of Wisner CA5
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Estate of JOHN WISNER,
Deceased.
RONALD G. OSBAND,
Petitioner and
Appellant,
v.
JEANETTE RAYPHOLTZ,
Objector and
Respondent.
F058073
(Super.
Ct. No. 06CEPR00661)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno
County. M. Bruce Smith, Judge.
Baker,
Manock & Jensen, Jeffrey A. Jaech, Dirk B. Paloutzian and Mark S.
Poochigian for Petitioner and Appellant.
Helon &
Manfredo and Donald R. Forbes for Objector and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner, Ronald G. Osband
(Ronald),[1] petitioned the probate court for an order
directing respondent, Jeannette Raypholtz (Raypholtz), to return certain funds
and personal property to petitioner as the personal representative of decedent,
John L. Wisner. Petitioner alleged that,
prior to decedent's death; forged documents were used to name Raypholtz as
beneficiary of some of decedent's investment accounts. Additionally, certain transfers of funds from
one of decedent's bank or investment accounts to another were made or
attempted, based on documents bearing allegedly forged signatures. The petition also alleged decedent's
signatures on certificates of title to his automobiles, transferring them to
Raypholtz as a gift, were not genuine.
Petitioner sought an order requiring Raypholtz to return the assets to
the probate estate. After a 10-day
trial, the court denied the petition, finding that the challenged transactions
were carried out with the knowledge and at the direction of the decedent, the
signatures were not forged, and the transactions were not the result of undue
influence exerted on decedent.
Petitioner appeals. We find no
error and affirm.
Decedent,
John L. â€
| Description | Petitioner, Ronald G. Osband (Ronald),[1] petitioned the probate court for an order directing respondent, Jeannette Raypholtz (Raypholtz), to return certain funds and personal property to petitioner as the personal representative of decedent, John L. Wisner. Petitioner alleged that, prior to decedent's death; forged documents were used to name Raypholtz as beneficiary of some of decedent's investment accounts. Additionally, certain transfers of funds from one of decedent's bank or investment accounts to another were made or attempted, based on documents bearing allegedly forged signatures. The petition also alleged decedent's signatures on certificates of title to his automobiles, transferring them to Raypholtz as a gift, were not genuine. Petitioner sought an order requiring Raypholtz to return the assets to the probate estate. After a 10-day trial, the court denied the petition, finding that the challenged transactions were carried out with the knowledge and at the direction of the decedent, the signatures were not forged, and the transactions were not the result of undue influence exerted on decedent. Petitioner appeals. Court find no error and affirm. |
| Rating |
