Bank of America v. Whitman

California Court of Appeal Mar 6, 1984 No. No. B001177Published

Before: Roth

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the decedent's handwritten interlineations and additions on a formal will were invalid as a holographic codicil because they were unintelligible and lacked testamentary substance without reference to the underlying typewritten document. Consequently, the trial court's order admitting these changes and the subsequent explanatory letter to probate was reversed.

Issues

Whether handwritten interlineations on a formal will constitute a valid holographic codicil when they rely on the underlying typewritten text for meaning.
Whether a letter written by the decedent expressing testamentary intent is a valid holographic codicil when it is conjoined with invalid modifications to a formal will.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the handwriting involved here is wholly unintelligible, devoid of testamentary intent and without substance as previously defined, except insofar as it is explained by incorporating the typewritten provisions of the formal will to which it relates.”

Opinion

ROTH, P. J. The decedent, Burl Richard Phifer, Jr., died on or about May 4, 1981. His body was discovered in a motel room in Oceanside, California and the cause of his death was attributed to suicide.

On or about May 3, 1981, the decedent made certain identical holographic additions, deletions and interlineations on several copies of his formal, witnessed will dated February 20, 1981,1 which may be illustrated as follows:2

“Last Will and Testament of Burl Richard Phifer, Jr.

A Resident of California

[Amended by written intil [szc] 5-3-81 Burl Richard Phifer, Jr.]

“Fourth: I give and bequeath my interests in the real property located at 233 Seal Beach Blvd, Seal Beach, California to [Patrick Grady Whitman] [Larry B. Stevenson BRP 5-3-81], Should he predecease me said property [815]shall pass in equal portions to [Larry B. Stevenson] [BRP] and my brother, Robert Dale Phifer of Savanna, Oklahoma.

“Fifth: I give and bequeath to Patrick Grady Whitman [35] [30 BRP 5-3-81] per cent interest in my veterinary practice known as Seal Beach Marina Veterinary Clinic .... I bequest the remainder of the practice interest in the following manner, [30] [50 BRP 5-3-81] per cent to Delia Marie Burchfield, D.V.M., 1216 South Main Street, Fallbrook California and [5] [20 BRP 5-3-81] per cent to Ethel Roberts ....

“Sixth: I give and bequeath my interests in the real property located at 1216 South Main Street, Fallbrook, California to [Patrick Grady Whitman.] [Delia Marie Burchfield 5-3-81 BRP]

“Eighth: I give and bequeath to Patrick Grady Whitman [60] [10 BRP 5-3-81] per cent interest in my veterinary practice known a Huntington Harbour Veterninary Clinic ... I bequest the remainder of the practice interest in the following manner [40] [90 BRP 5-3-81] per cent to Delia Marie Burchfield, D.V.M.....

“Twelveth: I give and bequeath to [Patrick Whitman] [Bobby Dale Phi-fer and Clara Jean Gillin] [BRP 5-3-81] the real property, including house, barn, and 162 acres, located at Route 1, Purdy, Barry County. ...”

The decedent also composed the following handwritten letter:

Bank of America v. Whitman

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief