Wright v. James

California Court of Appeal Jun 27, 1973 No. Civ. No. 41521Published

Before: Allport, Cobey

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A document containing both handwritten and typewritten portions is invalid as a holographic will under Probate Code section 53 when the typewritten matter is incorporated into the testamentary provisions by the decedent.

Issues

Whether a document containing both typewritten and handwritten portions satisfies the requirements of Probate Code section 53 for a holographic will.
Whether typewritten introductory matter connected to handwritten dispositive provisions by the words 'as follows' constitutes incorporation into the will.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the document in question was properly determined by the trial court to be invalid as a holographic will as not being “entirely written, dated and signed” by the hand of the deceased.”

“the typewritten portions thereof were incorporated by decedent into the handwritten portion and were intended by the testatrix to be a part of her will.”

“the typewritten portions were thus physically “incorporated in the provisions” by the decedent herself.”

Opinion — Allport

Opinion

ALLPORT, J. On September 21, 1971, Maizie Helmar died at Carbon-dale, Colorado, leaving an estate consisting of both real and personal [111]property. On December 3, 1971, Faye Wright filed a petition for probate of holographic will of the following document, which contained the following typewritten introductory clause:

“LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT

5401 West Olympic Blvd.,

Los Angeles, Calif.

September 6, 1971.

I, MAIZIE HELMAR, a resident of Los Angeles, County, California, of sound mind, over the age of eighteen years, abd bit [sic] acting under duress, menace, fraud, nor undue influence of any person, do make, publish and declare this instrument to be my LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, as follows:”

The words “as follows,” italicized above, and the balance of the purported will were entirely written and the document is dated in decedent’s handwriting, except for the typewritten characters “e3” appearing at the top of the third and final page. A contest to the probate of said purported will was filed by five of deceased’s first cousins alleging that the document in question was not a valid will. Following trial by the court the purported will was rejected and denied probate. In so ruling the court found as follows:

“6. The September 6, 1971 document was partially typewritten on pages 1 and 3 thereof and partially handwritten with said handwritten portions thereof being in the handwriting of the deceased.

“7. The typewritten portions of said September 6, 1971 document were intended by the deceased to be incorporated into said document as a material part thereof.

“8. The typewritten portions of said September 6, 1971 document prevent such document from being entirely written, dated and signed by the hand of the deceased herself as required by Probate Code § 53.”

Faye Wright as executrix, and the Self-Realization Fellowship Church as a named beneficiary, appeal from the judgment. The sole issue on appeal is whether or not the document should have been admitted to probate as a valid holographic will complying with terms of section 53 of the Probate Code.1

Wright v. James

AI Brief

Opinion — Allport

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

Dissent — Cobey

AI Brief