How have the courts interpreted section 196a of the California Probate Code and the survival statute?

The second contention is that the instant action necessarily survives by virtue of the language of section 573, Probate Code. Appellant argues that since section 196a specifically provides for the enforcement of a parental obligation by requiring the father to give security for providing support, this action is properly construed as one to enforce appellant's lien on decedent's property; also, that he is attempting to enforce the 'property right of support' within the terms of the survival statute. In support of such thesis the invokes the broad definition of 'property' as declared in Hunt v. Authier, 28 Cal.2d 288, 296, 169 P.2d 913. Such arguments do not take into account the facts that (1) the paternity of decedent had not been established; (2) support for appellant had not been decreed at the time this action was instituted. Thus the suit is not to enforce an existing obligation. Neither is it an action to recover property or to enforce a lien thereon any more than would be a tort action wherein a successful plaintiff seeks to procure a judgment lien. Moreover, in Hunt v. Authier the word 'property' was construed as it is used in section 574 of the Probate Code. No mention is made of section 573. The broad

Page 56