Los Angeles Orphans' Home Society v. Haas

California Court of Appeal Jun 16, 1939 No. Civ. 12170-SPublished

Before: Doran

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the distribution of a residuary charitable legacy to the Church Home for Children, holding that where a testatrix expresses a general charitable intent but fails to identify a specific legatee, the court may exercise its equity powers to distribute the funds to the institution that most closely aligns with the testatrix's intent.

Issues

Whether a residuary legacy lapses when the named charitable beneficiary cannot be identified with certainty.
Whether the trial court erred in exercising its equity powers to select a charitable institution that most closely matched the testatrix's general charitable intent.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the court in the exercise of its general equity powers decides that the ‘ Church Home for Children of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Los Angeles, in its name, . . . purposes and conduct comes more nearly than either of the other claimants, within the provisions of the will”

“the respondent, the Protestant Episcopal Old Ladies’ Home, comes more nearly within the provisions of the will than either of the other claimants, and that, under the liberal rules of construction applicable to legacies to charitable institutions”

DORAN, J.

Decedent herein, Katherine Zens, died April 25, 1929, leaving a will dated December 29, 1928, which was duly admitted to probate. At the time of her death, her only heir-at-law was her brother, Ludwig Mueller, a resident of Germany. Subsequently, and prior to the proceeding hereinafter referred to, said Ludwig Mueller died, leaving heirs, all foreign residents. One Lucile McGuire was appointed administratrix of Ludwig Mueller’s estate.

The will of Katherine Zens by its terms provided, among other things, as follows:

‘1 Tenthly. I hereby devise and bequeath all the rest and residue of my estate, if any, to the Protestant Orphan Asylum of Los Angeles, California, by whatsoever name the same may be legally known.”

On behalf of Lucile P. McGuire, as administratrix of the estate of Ludwig Mueller, deceased, a “Petition for Order Determining Heirship and Interests in Estate” was filed, which alleged in substance (and particularly as affecting the within appeal), that the purported gift to “The Protestant Orphan Asylum of Los Angeles” was void for the alleged reason that no organization of that name or a similar name was in existence; that there were a number of organizations coming within the category of this designation in Los Angeles and that it was impossible for the court to determine which one, if any, the testatrix had in mind; that Katherine Zens died intestate as to said void portion of the will and that the residue of her estate should he distributed to her heirs.

Separate answers were filed in behalf of the “Children’s Home Society of California”, “The Church Home for Children of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Los Angeles” and the “Los Angeles Orphans’ Home Society”. Each of these institutions claimed the benefits of the provisions of the aforementioned tenth paragraph.

[377]

After a hearing, and based upon its findings that: “There was not in Los Angeles City or Los Angeles county at the date of the execution of the will, nor at any time since, any institution having the name ‘Protestant Orphan Asylum of Los Angeles’; that no sufficient proof was offered to identify the institution Katherine Zens intended to name as legatee in the tenth paragraph of her will; and that the testamentary intent of Katherine Zens was a ‘ general charitable intent ’ for the care, maintenance and religious instruction of orphans and needy children in a Protestant institution”, the court concluded as follows:

Los Angeles Orphans' Home Society v. Haas

AI Brief

DORAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief