Estate of Supple

California Court of Appeal Dec 21, 1966 No. Civ. No. 23453Published

Before: Shoemaker

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a will contest based on the alleged falsity of religious beliefs is nonjusticiable under the First Amendment, as courts may only inquire into the sincerity and good faith of the beliefs, not their truth or scientific validity.

Issues

Whether a will contest alleging fraud and undue influence based on the falsity of religious teachings is justiciable under the First Amendment.
Whether a pleading that fails to allege a lack of good faith or honesty in religious beliefs states a cause of action.
Whether a party who declines to amend their pleading after being given the opportunity may rely on an opponent's answer to cure defects.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is settled that inquiry into the truth or falsity of religious beliefs is foreclosed by constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and that the courts may ask only whether the proponent of a particular religion holds his beliefs honestly”

“Since the Hallinan pleading is devoid of any allegation relative to respondents' lack of honesty or good faith, it does not state a cause of action which is susceptible of proof within the limits of the First Amendment.”

247 Cal.App.2d 410 (1966) Estate of DAVID SUPPLE, Deceased. TERENCE HALLINAN, Plaintiff in Intervention and Appellant,

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. No. 23453. California Court of Appeals. First Dist., Div. Two.

Dec. 21, 1966. Vincent Hallinan for Plaintiff in Intervention and Appellant.

Barrett, Lucey & Harkleroad, Emmett Lucey, John F. Duff, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, Noel J. Dyer, Charles P. Knights, Wilkie C. Courter, Pasquinelli, Panelli, Nino & Filice, Edward A. Panelli, Broad, Busterud & Khourie, John W. Broad, Clark, Heafey & Martin, Gerald P. Martin, Frank J. Perry, Tobin & Tobin, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison and William P. Callahan for Defendants and Respondents.

SHOEMAKER, P. J.

This is an appeal by Terence Hallinan, the intervener in a will contest, from a judgment on the pleadings.

John Smith, a grandnephew of the testator, filed a contest of the will of David Supple, [fn. 1] which theretofore had been admitted to probate. The will left a substantial portion of Supple's estate to various charities affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church. Smith attacked the will upon the grounds that it was improperly executed, that the testator was not of sound and disposing mind or memory at the time of its making, and that his signature thereto was obtained by fraud and undue influence.

Thereafter Terence Hallinan, an assignee of one-quarter of Smith's interest in the Supple estate, filed a "contest in intervention" which attacked the will on the grounds of fraud and undue influence only. The Hallinan pleading, which was identical with the fraud and undue influence counts of the Smith pleading, enumerated the various charities (including schools, missions and religious orders and societies) which were named in the will, and alleged that all of them were agents, agencies and divisions of the Roman Catholic Church. It was further alleged that the testator had been a devout Roman Catholic from his earliest childhood until the time of his death and that the charitable beneficiaries named in the will had educated and instructed him continuously throughout his life, and in so doing had acted as agents for the Church and for each other. [412]

Estate of Supple

AI Brief

SHOEMAKER, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief