Estate of Mayer

California Court of Appeal Oct 20, 1965 No. Civ. No. 28974Published

Before: Files

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a testamentary bequest to a charitable hospital for the purpose of establishing a memorial via beds or rooms and associated plaques is a valid charitable gift, as the memorialization is incidental to the charitable purpose.

Issues

Whether a bequest to a charitable hospital for the establishment of a memorial, including plaques and name plates, constitutes a valid charitable gift.
Whether the discretion granted to the hospital to allocate funds between hospital facilities and memorial plaques renders the bequest invalid.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is the purpose for which the property is to be used, however, not the motives of the testator that determines whether a trust is a valid charitable trust.”

“The fact that the testator may have been motivated by a desire to perpetuate the memory of named persons does not necessarily destroy the charitable character of the bequest.”

237 Cal.App.2d 549 (1965) Estate of BETTINA MAYER, Deceased. JOSEPHINE SANDERS, Plaintiff and Appellant,

CHILDRENS HOSPITAL OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent.

Civ. No. 28974. California Court of Appeals. Second Dist., Div. Four.

Oct. 20, 1965. Nat Rosin and Harry L. Schuman for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Cosgrove, Cramer, Rindge & Barnum and Samuel H. Rindge for Defendant and Respondent.

FILES, P. J.

[1a] The sole matter to be determined in this appeal is the validity and effect of that portion of the decedent's will which reads as follows:

"Eighth: I give, devise and bequeath the entire residue of my estate, wheresoever situated and of whatever kind, nature or extent, to Childrens Hospital Society of Los Angeles, a charitable institution, for the purposes of establishing a memorial for Arthur Mayer, my deceased husband, and Mathilda Wolff, my deceased mother, through the endowment [551] of one or more cribs, beds or rooms in said hospital, and that suitable plates or plagques be affixed or displayed in appropriate places; provided, however, that if the said residue is insufficient for such purposes, then said residue is given to such hospital for the establishment of such a memorial as such hospital deems appropriate. If by reason of any provision of law limiting, restricting or invalidating gifts to charity, all or any portion of the aforesaid gift or gifts is invalid, such gift or gifts, or the invalid portion thereof, shall go to Josephine Sanders, the niece of my husband, if she is living, or if she have predeceased me, then to her heirs at law, living at my demise."

When the executor petitioned for final distribution to the Childrens Hospital in accordance with the will, Josephine Sanders filed objections upon the ground that the bequest to the hospital was invalid because it was not for a charitable purpose. The trial court held a hearing, following which it made its decree of final distribution which recites (among other things): "that no portion of the gift of the residue of the estate to Childrens Hospital of Los Angeles, as set forth in Article Eighth of said Will, is or was invalid; that said gift is to a charitable corporation and for a charitable purpose and valid in all respects; ..." The decree provides, among other things, that the residue of the estate be distributed to Childrens Hospital of Los Angeles. [fn. 1] Josephine Sanders is appealing from that portion of the decree.

Estate of Mayer

AI Brief

FILES, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief