Passerini v. Lasalle

California Court of Appeal Dec 28, 1945 No. Civ. 12860Published

Before: Goodell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a residuary clause in a holographic will containing extraneous, meaningless words should be construed to give effect to the testatrix's clear intent to dispose of her entire estate, rather than declaring the clause void for uncertainty.

Issues

Whether a residuary clause in a holographic will containing the meaningless phrase 'of my' is void for uncertainty.
Whether the court may disregard meaningless words in a will as surplusage to avoid partial intestacy.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The two words inserted in the position in which we find them, concededly have no meaning, and consequently they may be regarded as surplusage”

“The trial court’s construction of the will is in accord with the recognized rules of construction and carries out the obvious intent of the testatrix to dispose of her entire estate.”

GOODELL, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition to determine heirship. The appeal is presented wholly on a settled statement under rule 7(b) of the Rules on Appeal.

Marie J. Soulie died on April 4, 1943, leaving the following holographic will:

“Feb-18/43. in case of Death I bequeath $1,000-00 to my Sister in Law—Mrs. Pierre Nombolot of St-Mitchel Flecazeville France, if she is not living thento her children Madeleine and Morris.

“To my Late Husbands nephew Joseph Lasalle 1000.00-and of my the rest to his brother Urbain Lassalle of Fernie B. C. Canada.

“To my half-sister—Mrs. Charles Passerini I leave one dollar 1 BA or to any one of her family who tries to contest this testament

“Also one dollar to my brother in-law Eugene Soulie if he or any of his family tries to contest this testament.

Marie J. Soulie 377-3rd St.

San Francisco Calif.”

[334]

The will was admitted to probate on May 11, 1943, at which time Phil C. Katz was appointed administrator of the estate with the will annexed. The estate exceeds the sum of $4,000 after payment of the two specific legacies in the amount of $1,000 each, the payment of all debts of the decedent and the expenses of administration including taxes. On November 27, 1943, Mrs. Charles Passerini, who was bequeathed $1.00 under the will, filed her petition to determine heirship. She alleged that she was the sister of decedent and that she was entitled to distribution of the residue of the estate because the decedent died intestate except for the two specific legacies, there being no residuary clause in the will. Urbain Lasalle filed an answer alleging that the decedent bequeathed to him all of her estate except the amounts provided for by the two legacies plus the sum of $1.00 to petitioner. At the trial the parties stipulated that neither contested the two $1,000 legacies. The matter was thereupon argued and submitted for decision. On July 19, 1944, the court entered its order denying the petition, ordering all of the residue of the estate to be distributed to Urbain Lasalle and ordering that the sum of $1.00 be paid to Mrs. Charles Passerini.

Passerini v. Lasalle

AI Brief

GOODELL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief