Estate of Meyer

California Court of Appeal Apr 28, 1966 No. Civ. No. 29684Published

Before: Files

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that beneficiaries of a testamentary trust may appeal a probate decree even if they did not appear in the lower court, and that the probate court's interpretation of the will's tax-payment provision was not erroneous as a matter of law.

Issues

Whether beneficiaries who did not appear in probate court have standing to appeal a decree of distribution.
Whether the trial court's interpretation of the will's tax-payment provision was correct as a matter of law.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There is also authority permitting a person interested in the devolution of an estate to appeal from a decree which adversely affects his share, even though he did not appear and object in the probate court.”

“We cannot say, upon this record, that the probate court's interpretation of the will was wrong.”

241 Cal.App.2d 747 (1966) Estate of MAY A. MEYER, Deceased. ALFRED T. GIBSON et al., Objectors and Appellants,

CHARLES H. JONES as Coexecutor, etc., et al., Petitioners and Respondents.

Civ. No. 29684. California Court of Appeals. Second Dist., Div. Four.

Apr. 28, 1966. Koos & Lindstrom and John M. Schwartz for Objectors and Appellants.

Darling, Shattuck, Hall & Call, Matthew S. Rae, Jr., and Marshall Hickson for Petitioners and Respondents.

FILES, P. J.

This appeal involves the interpretation of that portion of a will which directs payment of taxes, and the right of the appellants to raise the issue initially in the appellate court.

May A. Meyer died on January 26, 1964, leaving a will dated July 11, 1960, and a codicil thereto dated January 17, 1963. Both instruments were admitted to probate. Charles L. Jones and William A. Sickner were appointed coexecutors and letters testamentary were issued to them on February 25, 1964.

The pertinent provisions of the will and codicil follow: By paragraph Third of her will, testatrix left to Minnie Dixon the sum of $500 to be paid to her "tax free." By the same paragraph, she gave specific items of personal property to Our Lady of Lourdes Convent. [749]

Paragraph Fourth of the will contains the following language:

"Fourth: The residue of my estate I leave as follows: To Thomas P. Lahey, Sr., any real property still in my estate which came to me from the estate of my father. In the event he should predecease me, the real property shall then augment any personal property which came to me from the estate of my father and shall be divided as follows: [Then follows a provision for division among the children of Thomas P. Lahey, Sr., the nephew of the decedent, and a first cousin of the decedent.]"

"(b) The balance of the residue of my estate being the assets from the estate of my late husband Delmar E. Meyer, and any other remaining assets, to William E. Sickner and Charles L. Jones, in Trust, for the following purposes:" [Then follow the terms of the trust with provisions for distribution of income and principal.]

Estate of Meyer

AI Brief

FILES, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief