Estate of Russell case brief summary
444 P.2d 353 (1968)
CASE FACTS
Decedent's will stated the her dog was to receive one-half her residuary estate and the friend was entitled to receive the other half. In the heir's suit to challenge the gift, the trial court admitted, over the heir's objection, the friend's extrinsic evidence that tended to show that the decedent did not want to die intestate. The trial court attempted to carry out the decedent's intent and ruled that decedent intended to leave her entire estate to the friend with the hope that he would care for the dog.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the judgment. The language of the will clearly and unambiguously indicated the decedent's intent to bequeath one-half of her residuary estate to her dog. As such, the disposition was invalid because a dog could not be a beneficiary under a will. The heir was thus entitled to the intended gift to the dog, in accord with the rules of intestate succession.
Suggested Study Aids For Wills, Trusts & Estate Law
444 P.2d 353 (1968)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff heir appealed a
judgment from the Superior Court of San Diego County (California)
that denied her claim to one-half of the decedent's residuary estate
and ruled that, in an attempt to carry out the decedent's intent to
divide the residuary estate between her dog and defendant friend, the
friend was entitled to the entire residuary estate with the
obligation to care for the dog.CASE FACTS
Decedent's will stated the her dog was to receive one-half her residuary estate and the friend was entitled to receive the other half. In the heir's suit to challenge the gift, the trial court admitted, over the heir's objection, the friend's extrinsic evidence that tended to show that the decedent did not want to die intestate. The trial court attempted to carry out the decedent's intent and ruled that decedent intended to leave her entire estate to the friend with the hope that he would care for the dog.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court ruled that because the language of the will was clear and unambiguous, the trial court erred by admitting the friend's extrinsic evidence.
- The court ruled that the intended gift to the dog was invalid because a dog could not be a beneficiary under a will.
- Moreover, the court ruled, again because the will was clear and unambiguous, a trust such as the one found by the trial court was not intended by the decedent and was thus improperly imposed.
- Through intestate succession, the heir was entitled to receive the one-half interest intended for the dog.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the judgment. The language of the will clearly and unambiguously indicated the decedent's intent to bequeath one-half of her residuary estate to her dog. As such, the disposition was invalid because a dog could not be a beneficiary under a will. The heir was thus entitled to the intended gift to the dog, in accord with the rules of intestate succession.
Suggested Study Aids For Wills, Trusts & Estate Law
No comments:
Post a Comment