In Re Estate of Hull

California Court of Appeal May 7, 1926 No. Docket No. 5621.Published

Before: Langdon

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the testator's will devised a fee-simple estate to his wife, as the language directing the wife to give the remainder to others was addressed to the legatee rather than an executor and did not limit the absolute gift.

Issues

Whether the will devised a fee-simple estate or a life estate to the testator's wife.
Whether the testator's direction to the wife to give the remainder of the property to others created a binding limitation on her interest.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the desire of a testator for the disposition of his estate will be construed as a command when addressed to his executor, it will not, when addressed to his legatee, be construed as a limitation upon the estate”

“by the use of the words “or the remainder thereof,” the testator recognized the effect of the previous devise as investing the wife with an absolute power of disposition.”

LANGDON, P. J.

This is an appeal from a decree of final distribution in the matter of the Estate of Thomas L.

[793]

Hull, deceased. Appellants object to the decree because it proceeds upon the theory that a fee-simple estate in certain real property was devised to Mary M. Hull by the last will and testament of Thomas L. Hull, deceased, her husband. The only question involved is the construction of certain language in the will, as follows:

“I give and bequeath to my beloved wife, Mary M. Hull, the house and lot situated at 328 West Colorado street, city of Glendale, state of California, described as follows, to-wit: Lot 10 in block C, Grand Valley View Tract, book 9, page 157 of maps of record in the recorder’s office of L°os Angeles county of said state, together with all improvements and personal property situated in and about it ;• and the sum of five hundred dollars in cash.

“At the death of said wife I direct that she give said real property so given her by me, or the remainder thereof, to my son, Lee D. Hull, and Anna May Hull, share and share alike.”

The legal representative of Lee D. Hull and Anna May Hull contend for a construction of the will which will give the widow a life estate and the remainder to the other persons named.

The language of devise to the wife contains no words of limitation. It is also legally significant that the direction to give the property, or the remainder thereof, to the son is addressed to the devisee and not to an executor. In the case of

Estate of Mitchell,

160 Cal. 618 [117 Pac. 774], quoting from another California case (132 Cal. 666 [61 Pac. 964]), it was said that, while the desire of a testator for the disposition of his estate will be construed as a command when addressed to his executor, it will not, when addressed to his legatee, be construed as a limitation upon the estate or interest which has been given him in absolute terms.

The language of the second paragraph quoted from the will confirms the previous devise, when it described the property as that which was “given her (the wife) by me (the testator).” Likewise, by the use of the words “or the remainder thereof,” the testator recognized the effect of the previous devise as investing the wife with an absolute power of disposition.

In Re Estate of Hull

AI Brief

LANGDON, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

THE COURT.

AI Brief