ESTATE OF RUSSELL
69 Cal. 2d 200, 444 P.2d 353, 70 Cal. Rptr. 561 (1968)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an action challenging construction of a will. Appealed.
Hembree (P), heir, appealed a judgment denying her claim to one-half of the decedent's
residuary estate and ruled that Quinn (D) was entitled to the entire residuary estate with
the obligation to care for the dog.
FACTS: Testatrix executed a valid holographic will, leaving the residue of her estate to
Quinn (D), and to Roxy Russell. Quinn was a friend of testatrix. Roxy Russell was a dog
which was alive at the time the will was executed, but which predeceased testatrix. The will
provided a specific bequest to testatrix's niece and sole heir at law (P). P claimed that
the bequest to the dog was invalid, and that, as testatrix's heir, she was entitled to half
of the estate. D was permitted to introduce evidence regarding testatrix's intent to leave
her estate to D, and that she intended for D to care for the dog. The probate court found
that D was the residual taker under the will, and construed the bequest to the dog as merely
reflecting testatrix's intent that D care for the dog.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment