Estate of Hurwitz

WHITE, P. J.

Appellant, an heir-at-law of Jerome Hurwitz, deceased, seeks reversal of an order of the superior court, sitting in probate, directing partial distribution of the estate

[303]

of said decedent to certain charities pursuant to the following provision contained in the will of decedent:

“The entire balance of my estate I leave to charity and the recipient of this charity shall be designated by my friend Harry I. Rubin of the Associated Bond & Insurance Agency. In other words, H. I. Rubin shall pick out the charity organization that shall receive the balance of my estate after all of the above is taken care of.”

The H. I. Rubin referred to is the respondent executor of the will of the decedent.

That a testamentary provision such as the foregoing creates a valid charitable trust is not open to question. In

Estate of Bunn,

33 Cal.2d 897 [206 P.2d 635], the Supreme Court had under consideration a direction of the testatrix that her residual estate should be “sold and given to a worthy charity selected by my executors.” It was held that no particular words or phrases are necessary for the creation of a trust, and that where a testatrix names a bank as executor and then provides that the residue of her estate, after the death of her husband, shall be sold and the proceeds given to a charity to be selected by her executor, there is an express subject, purpose and beneficiary of the trust in addition to the existence of a trust intent which appears from the nature of the devise (Civ. Code, §2221), and a specific designation of the bank as trustee.

Appellant concedes that “all of the recent cases have upheld trusts created for charity organizations. In the

Estate of Bunn,

33 Cal.2d 897 [206 P.2d 635], the court upheld a provision similar to the provision in this will in the case at bar. The recent cases in this state on provisions similar to the one involved in this appeal have all been resolved in favor of upholding the testamentary disposition of the decedent.