Estate of Barnes

California Supreme Court Nov 22, 1965 No. L. A. No. 27848Published

Before: Burke

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a will containing no residuary clause and failing to provide for the contingency of the testatrix outliving her husband results in partial intestacy, as courts cannot supply missing dispositive clauses through conjecture. A disinheritance clause cannot prevent heirs at law from inheriting property as to which the decedent died intestate.

Issues

Whether a will that fails to provide for the contingency of the testatrix surviving her husband by several years can be construed to favor a named alternate beneficiary.
Whether a disinheritance clause prevents heirs at law from taking property when a will fails to dispose of all assets.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is settled that a disinheritance clause, no matter how broadly or strongly phrased, operates only to prevent a claimant from taking under the will itself”

“Courts are not permitted in order to avoid a conclusion of intestacy to adopt a construction based on conjecture as to what the testator may have intended although not expressed.”

63 Cal.2d 580 (1965) Estate of MYRTLE IVEY BARNES. Deceased. ROBERT ERLE HENDERSON, as Executor, etc., Petitioner and Respondent,

GENE SNOW et al., Claimants and Appellants.

L. A. No. 27848. Supreme Court of California. In Bank.

Nov. 22, 1965. Reid, Babbage & Coil and Horace O. Coil for Claimants and Appellants.

Harmon D. Spanner for Petitioner and Respondent. [581]

BURKE, J.

In this heirship proceeding, two of the heirs at law of decedent, Mrs. Barnes, appeal from an order determining that under the provisions of her will Robert Erle Henderson, a nephew named in the will, is entitled to distribution of the entire estate. As will appear, we have concluded that the trial court erred in its conclusion that the will effectively disposed of testatrix' property. The order appealed from must therefore be reversed.

Mrs. Barnes died in September 1962 leaving a will, dated June 21, 1949, which was admitted to probate in January 1963. The will was prepared by an attorney, and declares that the testatrix was married, had no children, and intended by the will "to dispose of all my property." [fn. 1] The will next provides that all of the testatrix' property is to go to her husband, [fn. 2] and that in the event of the simultaneous death of testatrix and her husband the entire estate shall go to Robert Erle Henderson, [fn. 3] petitioner in this heirship proceeding. A no contest clause [fn. 4] and a disinheritance clause [fn. 5] follow. Testatrix' [582] husband is named as executor, with petitioner as alternate. The will contains no residuary clause, and no dispositive clauses except those already mentioned and found in paragraphs Fifth and Sixth.

Carlton Barnes, the husband of the testatrix, predeceased her by more than five years. She left no lineal descendants, but did leave as her heirs at law two brothers, two sisters, and a nephew and nieces who are children of deceased brothers and sisters.petitioner, a nephew, is not an heir at law, as his mother (the sister of testatrix) survives. (Prob. Code, 225.)

Estate of Barnes

AI Brief

L. A. No. 27848. Supreme Court of California. In Bank.

BURKE, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief