Estate of Sayegh

California Court of Appeal Jun 4, 1953 No. Civ. 19461Published

Before: Doran

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the probate court's order granting a family allowance and declaring an antenuptial agreement void, finding sufficient evidence that the agreement was procured through fraud and undue influence.

Issues

Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that the antenuptial agreement was procured by fraud and undue influence.
Whether the trial court's findings regarding the existence of a confidential relationship and the invalidity of the agreement are binding on appeal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“said signing by petitioner was not the free and voluntary act of said petitioner and that said document and the said signature of petitioner were procured and obtained by duress, menace, fraud and undue influence of said decedent”

“Where the record discloses substantial evidence in support of the findings of a trial court, a reviewing court is not permitted to become a trier of fact nor a weigher of conflicting evidence.”

DORAN, J.

Executors of the estate of Gabriel N. Sayegh, deceased, are here appealing from a family allowance of $400 per month granted by the probate court to the respondent, decedent’s widow. The judgment and order also declared void a certain antenuptial agreement executed by respondent and decedent on February 18, 1952, the day of their marriage. The decedent died six days later, on February 24th. At the time of the marriage respondent, by profession an electrical engineer, was some 21 years younger than the decedent who was in poor health.

The antenuptial agreement in question reads as follows:

“Whereas, first party and second party contemplate legal marriage under the laws of the State of California; and

“Whereas, it is their mutual desire to enter into this agreement whereby they will regulate their relationships toward each other with respect to the property each of them own and in which each of them has an interest:

“Now, Therefore, It Is Mutually Agreed as Follows :

“1. That all properties of any kind or nature, real, personal or mixed, wherever the same may be found, which belong to each party, shall be and forever remain the personal estate of said party, including all interest, rents and profits which may accrue therefrom.

“2. That each shall have at all times the full right and authority, and in all respects the same as each would have if not married, to use, enjoy, manage, convey and encumber such property as may belong to such party as set forth in paragraph (1) above.

“3. That each party may make such disposition of his or her property as the case may be, by gift or will during his or her lifetime, as each sees fit; and in the case of the decease of one of the parties hereto, the survivor shall have no interest in the property of the estate of the other, either by way of inheritance, succession, family allowance or homestead.

“4. That each party, in the case of a separation of the parties hereto, shall have no right as against the other by way of claims for support, alimony, attorney fees, costs, or division of property.”

[329]

Estate of Sayegh

AI Brief

DORAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief