Estate of Parsons case brief summary
103 Cal. App. 3d 384
SYNOPSIS: Appellants, relatives of the deceased, challenged the judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which held that the devise to respondent executrix, who also witnessed the will, was valid despite the lack of two disinterested subscribing witnesses to the will as required by Cal. Prob. Code § 51.
OVERVIEW: Appellants, relatives of the deceased, challenged the devise to respondent executrix, claiming that because both she and another subscribing witness were beneficiaries under the will, there were not two disinterested subscribing witnesses as required by Cal. Prob. Code § 51. Respondent executors contended that one of the subscribing witnesses disclaimed her interest under the will pursuant to Cal. Prob. Code § 190.1, and that Cal. Prob. Code § 190.6 made the disclaimer retroactive to the creation of the interest. The reviewing court reversed the judgment of the trial court.
HOLDING:
The court held that Cal. Prob. Code § 51 looked only at the time of execution and attestation of the will and that a subsequent disclaimer was ineffective to transform an interested witness into a disinterested witness.
ANALYSIS:
Section 190.1 did not apply because respondent was not a "beneficiary" within the meaning of the disclaimer statute.
-There are different ways States handle interested witnesses.
1. Under the old California Probate Code, if there is an interested witness, but that witness only can take what they would take under intestate succession.
2. Under the new California Probate Code, having an interested witness creates the presumption that there was undue influence. However, this is a rebuttable presumption. If the witness fails to rebut, they only can take what they would take under intestate succession.
3. Under Uniform Probate Code § 2-505, there is no problem at all with interested witnesses.
4. In some States, the signature of an interested witness is void. If there aren't two other witnesses, the entire will is void.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that disclaimer filed by a subscribing witness who was also a beneficiary under the will was ineffective and the lack of two disinterested witnesses invalidated the devise to respondent executrix.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
103 Cal. App. 3d 384
SYNOPSIS: Appellants, relatives of the deceased, challenged the judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which held that the devise to respondent executrix, who also witnessed the will, was valid despite the lack of two disinterested subscribing witnesses to the will as required by Cal. Prob. Code § 51.
OVERVIEW: Appellants, relatives of the deceased, challenged the devise to respondent executrix, claiming that because both she and another subscribing witness were beneficiaries under the will, there were not two disinterested subscribing witnesses as required by Cal. Prob. Code § 51. Respondent executors contended that one of the subscribing witnesses disclaimed her interest under the will pursuant to Cal. Prob. Code § 190.1, and that Cal. Prob. Code § 190.6 made the disclaimer retroactive to the creation of the interest. The reviewing court reversed the judgment of the trial court.
HOLDING:
The court held that Cal. Prob. Code § 51 looked only at the time of execution and attestation of the will and that a subsequent disclaimer was ineffective to transform an interested witness into a disinterested witness.
ANALYSIS:
Section 190.1 did not apply because respondent was not a "beneficiary" within the meaning of the disclaimer statute.
-There are different ways States handle interested witnesses.
1. Under the old California Probate Code, if there is an interested witness, but that witness only can take what they would take under intestate succession.
2. Under the new California Probate Code, having an interested witness creates the presumption that there was undue influence. However, this is a rebuttable presumption. If the witness fails to rebut, they only can take what they would take under intestate succession.
3. Under Uniform Probate Code § 2-505, there is no problem at all with interested witnesses.
4. In some States, the signature of an interested witness is void. If there aren't two other witnesses, the entire will is void.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that disclaimer filed by a subscribing witness who was also a beneficiary under the will was ineffective and the lack of two disinterested witnesses invalidated the devise to respondent executrix.
Estate of
Parsons (Cal.
Ct. App. 1980) [27 CB
211]: Testator executed will with three witnesses, two of whom were
takers under the will. One of the takers
disclaimed after the will was offered for probate. Contestants urge that there weren’t enough
competent witnesses. Rule: Probate Code section 51 requires two competent, meaning disinterested,
witnesses at the time of execution. A
witness’ disclaimer, even though it dates back to the time of execution, occurs
after execution and thus fails to turn an interested witness into a
disinterested one.
a. Probate Code § 51 voided to the extent that
an interested witness receives more under the will than he would under an
intestacy statute
b. That many states have adopted broader purging
statutes not change CA law
c. Court says the purging statute overrules the
disclaimer (so that the disclaimer is ineffective), which is not in line with
testamentary intent b/c as a result of the disclaimer, one of testator’s chosen
beneficiaries will not take or take less
ii. Some purging statutes expunge the entire gift
to an interested witness
iii. UPC §
2-505 – Any person generally competent to be a witness is act as
witness to a will and no will provision is invalid b/c will is signed by an
interested witness (so long as there isn’t undue influence) (rule makes sense
b/c most witnesses aren’t even aware of the contents of the wills they sign)
iv. Purging statutes are cures to improper
execution and save wills from total voiding
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment