Schultz v. Bolz

California Supreme Court Jul 26, 1960 No. L. A. No. 25482Published

Before: Dooling

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that holographic documents labeled as a "copy" or sent as part of a letter may be admitted to probate as a valid will if they satisfy formal requirements and demonstrate testamentary intent, regardless of whether an original was ever found.

Issues

Whether holographic documents designated as a "copy" or sent in a letter were executed with the requisite testamentary intent (animus testandi).
Whether the failure to produce an "original" will creates a presumption of revocation that precludes the probate of the holographic documents.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The designation of an instrument as a ‘copy’ is not alone sufficient to establish that the decedent lacked testamentary intent in executing the instrument.”

“The fact that the second document was part of a longer letter does not affect its sufficiency as a will.”

“At the most, this is a case in which the evidence before the probate court would support conflicting inferences on the questions posed by appellant”

DOOLING, J. This is an appeal from an order admitting two holographic documents to probate as the last will of the deceased, John C. P. Schultz, who died on May 15, 1958. A surviving brother, Gustave O. E. Schultz, offered for probate a witnessed will executed in 1951. There also was offered for probate by Alfred P. Bolz, a friend of the deceased, two documents dated respectively, February 1, 1956, and March 22, 1956.1 Both of these latter documents were admittedly in the deceased’s handwriting. The court denied probate to the 1951 will on the ground of its revocation by the 1956 instruments and admitted to probate the latter two holographic documents as the integrated last will of the deceased.

[515]Mr. Bolz received the February 1, 1956, document from the deceased through the mail. The record does not show whether there was an accompanying letter. The document was headed : “Copy. Last Will and Testament.” After appointing Mr. Bolz as “administrator” and providing for a series of $1.00 gifts to several relatives, the document concluded with a residuary clause as follows:

“All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, real, personal or mixed, wheresoever situate, of which I may die seized or possessed or to which I may be entitled at the time of my desease, I give, devise and bequeath as follow to wit:

“A — To my good friend Leopold Singwald whom owes me the Sum of $400.001 will cancel the debt.

“B — To my beloved niece Ella (Alke) Ilse Ahrensburg in Holstein near Hamburg, Germany

“ C — To my nephew Hans Ebinger and his Wife in L.A.C.

“D—• To Mrs. Katie Whittemore 227 So. Flower St. in L.A.C.

“E — To Tom Nelson—a Farmer in Perris, Calif.

“F — To my good friend Geneva Miller in L.A.C.

“ G — To my good friend Henry Goerke

“Hereunto subscribed my Name this first day of February 1 —A.D. 1956

John C. F. Schultz

Rt. 1—Box 287—Perris, California”

It will be noted that except for the first item in the above residuary clause, the amounts of the individual gifts are not specified. The second document was part of a letter dated March 22, 1956, which the deceased sent to Mr. Bolz. It was addressed to “Dear Albert” and after asking for some advice relative to the presentation of a property damage claim, the letter concluded:

Schultz v. Bolz

AI Brief

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief