Burdick v. First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston

California Court of Appeal Apr 6, 1967 No. Civ. No. 31157Published

Before: Wood

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the decedent's will did not contain a residuary clause and that the decedent died intestate as to the residue of her estate, which must be distributed to her heirs at law. The specific provision regarding the sale of the home and furnishings was limited to those assets and did not constitute a general residuary bequest.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in determining that the decedent's will did not contain a residuary clause.
Whether the provision directing the sale of the home and furnishings and the distribution of the proceeds should be construed as a residuary clause.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court did not err in determining that as to the residue, or property not specifically disposed of in the will, the decedent died intestate ; that the residue should be distributed to the heirs at law of decedent”

“The import of such language is that only the proceeds from the sale of the home and furnishings (after payment of debts and gifts) shall go to the churches.”

WOOD, P. J. Howard K. Burdick, Administrator With the Will Annexed of the estate of Elva Dee Bailess, deceased filed a petition to determine heirship. The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts, and the Ninth Church of Christ, Scientist, Los Angeles, California, filed a claim of interest alleging that said churches were the residuary beneficiaries under the will of the deceased. James R. Dunn and Flora S. Houghton filed statements of interest alleging that they, as first cousins of decedent, had an interest in the estate. The court, having found that there was no residuary clause and that decedent died intestate as to the residue, ordered that the residue be distributed to the cousins James R. Dunn and Flora S. Houghton. The churches appeal from the portion of the judgment which distributes the residue. (The churches do not appeal from the portion of the judgment which distributes the specific legacies to several named beneficiaries, or from the portion thereof which determines that James and Flora are the decedent’s heirs at law.1)

Appellants contend that the court erred in determining that they were not residuary beneficiaries under the will.

Three purported wills (holographic) of the decedent were offered for probate. The holographic will which was admitted to probate is as follows:

" Los Angeles, California February 21st, 1957

Last Will and Testament of Elva Dee Bailess.

Be it remembered that, I, Elva Dee Bailess, of Los Angeles, California, being of adult age, and of a sound mind, memory and understanding and not acting under [972]duress, menace or undue influence of any person whomsoever, do make and publish this my last will and testament, hereby revoking and making void all former wills by me at any time heretofore made.

First: I direct that all my just debts and funeral expenses shall be paid as soon after my decease as practicable out of moneys belonging to my estate

Secondly : I direct that the sum of 3000. be paid to Howard K. Burdick of 5308 Arlington Ave., Los Angeles, California.

I direct that the sum of 5000.00 be paid to my dearly beloved friend Mrs. Margaret Bane Johnson, 3620 West First Street, Los Angeles, Calif.

I direct that the sum of $500 be paid to Miss Grace M. Nicholson, 418 North View Street Aurora, Illinois.

Burdick v. First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief