Estate of Lucas

California Court of Appeal Aug 30, 1951 No. Civ. No. 18225Published

Before: Drapeau

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the probate court's finding that the decedent's later will was duly executed and valid was supported by the evidence, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

Issues

Whether the evidence supported the probate court's finding that the decedent's later will was duly executed and valid.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the probate court's finding that the will admitted to probate was duly and properly executed, signed and published as decedent's last will and testament is supported by the evidence.”

“The granting of a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence is largely a matter of discretion.”

106 Cal.App.2d 378 (1951) Estate of S. ELLA LUCAS, Deceased. ISABEL KITTRELL, Petitioner and Respondent,

JANE REESE, Appellant; SECURITY FIRST NATIONAL BANK, Special Administrator and Respondent.

Civ. No. 18225. California Court of Appeals. Second Dist., Div. One.

Aug. 30, 1951. David B. Sallee, Scales & Broderick and Wallace B. Scales for Appellant.

Cannady & Freeman and George E. Cannady for Petitioner and Respondent.

Jacob W. Silverman for Special Administrator and Respondent. [379]

DRAPEAU, J.

During her last illness S. Ella Lucas made her will. After her death the will was offered for probate, and contest filed. The contest was heard by the court without a jury. Proof of due execution of the will was ample and sufficient.

Decedent was a widow, with no living issue; and, so far as the record shows, no heirs. Her only son served as an officer in the first world war and died in Sawtelle Veterans' Hospital in 1935.

Contestant's case may be summed up as follows: Decedent stated to several witnesses that she had a godchild, Jane Reese (who was no relative of the blood) to whom she wanted to will all her property. Decedent asked a real estate broker to prepare a will for her, leaving her property to her godchild. The broker prepared an extraordinary document, which, after it was signed by decedent, her godchild, two friends, and a notary public--who appended his jurat and seal--reads as follows:

"Los Angeles, Calif."

July 2, 1946

"To Whom It May Concern;"

"I will place everything I Possess into Jane Reese's hands, (my GOD child.) I trust GODand agree that she'll be benefituary in case anything should happen to me before 1953. My properity, jewelsm finance & everything goes to her. The properity's address is 630 E. 52nd street, & 832 Upland Ave. San Pedro, California. The bank is located at Vernon Ave. & Avalon Blvd."

Estate of Lucas

AI Brief

DRAPEAU, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief