Estate of Pelletier

California Court of Appeal Oct 18, 1963 No. Civ. No. 254Published

Before: Stone

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the appellant was an employee of the testator at the time of death, satisfying the condition of the will, because the testator's liquidation of his businesses made full-time employment impossible and the appellant continued to perform services for the testator.

Issues

Whether the appellant was in the 'employ' of the testator at the time of death as required by the will's provisions.
Whether the term 'employ' requires continuous or exclusive full-time employment to satisfy a testamentary condition.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a liberal construction is to be given a testamentary disposition in favor of a beneficiary who was an employee of the testator.”

“we are impelled to hold that appellant was an employee of the testator at the time of his death.”

221 Cal.App.2d 347 (1963) Estate of FRED W. PELLETIER, Deceased. PERRIN H. GUYTON, Petitioner and Appellant,

MELVINA STRICKLAND, Objector and Respondent.

Civ. No. 254. California Court of Appeals. Fifth Dist.

Oct. 18, 1963. Clawson & Jennings and Lawrence W. Clawson for Petitioner and Appellant.

No appearance for Objector and Respondent.

STONE, Acting P. J.

Testator died in 1961 and his will, executed in 1950, was admitted to probate the same year. He left $10,000 of his $372,814.01 estate to the brother and three sisters of his predeceased wife, the residue was devised and bequeathed in trust to Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association, providing a monthly income to his only child and after her death, monthly payments for the support of his grandchildren. The trust also provided for monthly payments to appellant, an employee at the time the will was executed, upon the condition that he be employed by testator at the time of death.

A petition to determine heirship was filed, the interests of all heirs, devisees, legatees and beneficiaries were determined, and the court found that appellant Guyton was not employed by testator at the time of death. He alone has appealed, and no one has appeared as respondent.

[1a, 2a] The provisions of the will which are before us for interpretation are as follows:

"(d) I now have, and for a long time, have had in my employ one Perrin H. Guyton, who has proven himself to be industrious, intelligent and honest and who I regard as being a valuable asset to my business enterprises, and it is my wish and request that if he remain in the employ of myself at my death, that the representative of my estate upon and after my demise, retain him as manager of my business and that he be retained as such under the same conditions and compensation and payable to him in the same manner as at the time of my demise. However, should the said Perrin H. Guyton, be unable, in the sole discretion of the Trustee, to continue as such manager of my business enterprises at any time following my demise, and for whatever cause or reason, either the said Perrin H. Guyton or the Trustee shall assign said cause or reason to include the liquidation of my business, if and in the sole discretion of the Trustee, such liquidation is deemed appropriate and proper during the life of said Perrin [349]

Estate of Pelletier

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief