Rupley v. Applegate

California Court of Appeal Oct 20, 1959 No. Civ. No. 9687Published

Before: Warne

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a testator's mistaken declaration that separate property was community property, coupled with an expression of desire that his wife receive a half-interest, effectively devised that half-interest to her by implication.

Issues

Whether a testator's mistaken belief that separate property was community property prevents the wife from inheriting a half-interest when the will expresses a desire for her to have it.
Whether the trial court erred in finding that the wife was a devisee of a half-interest in the testator's separate property by implication.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the second clause of his will is equivalent to a declaration that his wife Ruth shall have the full one-half thereof.”

“the intention that she shall have that share appears by necessary implication from the language used.”

WARNE, J. pro tem.* This is an appeal from a judgment in a probate proceeding determining heirship.

Appellant, William A. Rupley, is the administrator of the estate of his father Charles Joseph Rupley, deceased, who was the son and heir of Joseph Rupley, deceased. In his petition to determine heirship he alleged that the estate of Charles Joseph Rupley is entitled to a distributive share and interest in the estate of Joseph Rupley and that the other heirs are Frederick A. Rupley, Elmer O. Rupley, Genevieve Marie (Rupley) Noto and Joe Rupley, and that he, as the representative of the estate of Charles Joseph Rupley, and each of the other named heirs is entitled to a one-fifth distributive interest in said estate of said Joseph Rupley.

It is further alleged and it appears that the estate of Joseph Rupley, deceased, consisted of separate property which decedent had acquired prior to his marriage to his wife Ruth, who survived him. The estate consists of both real and personal property. It is conceded that all of said property was the separate property of said deceased.

Ruth A. Rupley has since died and Myrtle B. Applegate is the administratrix of her estate. The will of Joseph Rupley, insofar as is pertinent to the issue now before the court, provides:

“First: I declare that the principal part of my estate consists of my interest in the estate of my father, John W. Rupley, now deceased, and is, therefore, my separate property, but that the real property, owned by me and described as being the North half of the Southwest quarter and Lots Three and Four of Section Fourteen in Township Twelve North, Range Fifteen East, Mount Diablo Meridian, in the County of El Dorado, State of California, and all livestock, tools, implements, furniture and other personal property now owned by me is the community property of my wife, Ruth A. Rupley, and myself.

“Second: I recognize the interest and right of my said wife, Ruth A. Rupley, in and to all of said community property and it is my desire that she have her half interest in the said community real property and I hereby give and bequeath to her all of my interest in and to all of said community [599]personal property and all community personal property owned by me at the time of my death.

“Third: I give and bequeath to Clara Pearl Griggs, my daughter by adoption, the sum of Ten Dollars.

Rupley v. Applegate

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief