Brace's Estate, In re
Decision Date | 10 May 1960 |
Citation | 180 Cal.App.2d 797,4 Cal.Rptr. 683 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Matter of the ESTATE of Paul BRACE, etc., Deceased. Eileen DENMAN, Contestant and Appellant, v. Pura BERRY, Petitioner and Respondent. Civ. 24060. |
Frank S. Whiting, Pasadena, for appellant.
William S. Stack, Sherman Oaks, for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment admitting a codicil to a will to probate.
Paul Brace died on January 7, 1958, in Guadalajara, Mexico. He left neither spouse nor issue surviving. On July 25, 1957, he executed a holographic will by which he left all his property to his step-daughter, Dolores Neifert. The will was admitted to probate by the probate court of the County of Los Angeles on February 13, 1958. The court found that at the time of his death Brace was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and left estate therein. No appeal was taken from the order, and it became final. No contest of the will was filed within the statutory period after probate. Prob.Code, § 380. Dolores Neifert assigned her interest in the estate of Eileen Denman, her mother and the divorced wife of the deceased. The estate consists entirely of personal property.
On November 3, 1957, Brace executed a holographic codicil to the will by which he left everything he owned in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, and $5,000 cash, to Pura Berry. The codicil was entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator.
Pura Berry petitioned for probate of the codicil. Eileen Denman filed contest. One of the grounds of contest was that the deceased was domiciled in Mexico at the time he executed the codicil and that it was not executed in conformity with the law of that country. The matter was heard by the court sitting without a jury. The court found: (1) The document dated November 3, 1957, is a codicil to the will of July 25, 1957. (2) At the time of his death and on the date the codicil was executed, the deceased was domiciled in the County of Los Angeles. Judgment followed, admitting the codicil to probate. Eileen Denman appeals.
At the hearing of the contest, evidence was received on the question whether the deceased was domiciled in Mexico or in California at the time the codicil was executed. The parties agree that the codicil was not executed in conformity with the laws of Mexico, and that it was executed according to the law of California. Contestant asserts the finding that the deceased was domiciled in California at the time the codicil was executed is unsupported by the evidence and is contrary to all the evidence. We do not reach this question since we have concluded the validity of the codicil is determined by the domicile of the deceased at the time of his death, and the order admitting the will to probate is conclusive that he was domiciled in California at that time.
The essential characteristic of a will or codicil is that during the life of the testator it is and remains ambulatory, having no effect until his death occurs. The death of the maker establishes for the first time the character of the instrument. Nichols v. Emery, 109 Cal. 323, 329, 41 P. 1089; Niccolls v. Niccolls, 168 Cal. 444, 446, 143 P. 712; Notten v. Mensing, 3 Cal.2d 469, 473, 45 P.2d 198; In re Estate of Newton, 35 Cal.2d 830, 831, 221 P.2d 952, 19 A.L.R.2d 1399; Shive v. Barrow, 88 Cal.App.2d 838, 843, 199 P.2d 693; Daniels v. Bridges, 123 Cal.App.2d 585, 589, 267 P.2d 343. The general rule is that a will disposing of personal property is governed, as to the formal requisites essential to its validity, by the law in force at the place of domicile of the testator at the time of his death. In re Estate of Patterson, 64 Cal.App. 643, 647-648, 222 P. 374; In re Estate of Davision, 96 Cal.App.2d 263, 267-268, 215 P.2d 504. The Restatement says:
'The validity and effect of a will of movables is determined by the law of the state in which the deceased died domiciled. * * *
Rest., Conflict of Laws, 387, § 306.
The testator in Re Estate of Barton, 196 Cal. 508, 238 P. 681, was found to be a resident of California at the time of his death. At the time he executed his will he was domiciled in Rhode Island. On his death a portion of his personal property was physically within Rhode Island. Answering the contention that the law of the domicile at the time of the execution of the will, and not at the time of death, controlled the disposition of the personal property in Rhode Island, the court stated (196 Cal. at page 514, 238 P. at page 683):
Also see Estate of Reynolds, 217 Cal. 557, 20 P.2d 323. In re Estate of Patterson, supra, 64 Cal.App. 643, at page 647, 222 P. 374, at page 375, says:
To the text writers quoted from in Barton and Patterson may be added the following. Gardner:
'Since personal property has, broadly speaking, no locus apart from the domicile of its owner, and there being no reason why the sovereign within whose jurisdiction it chances to be physically situated should interfere with the method of its devolution, it is steadily held that in regard to testamentary capacity, method or execution, and construction the law of the state or country in which the testator was domiciled at the time of his death controls.'
(Gardner on Wills, 303, §§ 93-94.) Wharton:
'It is a principle of the common law of England, as has been already stated, that a will, executed according to the forms of the testator's last domicile, will pass his movable property wherever it may be found; and that, if not executed according to such form, it is inoperative as to movables.'
(II Wharton on Conflict of Laws, 1303, § 585.) Underhill:
'The validity of a will of personal property being determined according to the law of the domicile of the testator at the time of his death, irrespective of the fact that the property is located within another jurisdiction, it may become necessary to ascertain what the law of the domicile is.'
(I Underhill on the Law on Wills, 35, § 30.) Page:
'The validity of a testament by which personal property is bequeathed is determined by the law of the domicile of testator at the time of his death, even if its situs is in another state.'
(4 Page on Wills, Lifetime ed., 702, § 1637.) Leflar:
'The general rule of the common law is that * * * the validity of wills of movable personalty is determined by the law of the testator's domicile at death.'
(Leflar, Conflict of Laws, 357, § 186.) Rollison:
'Validity of a will of personal property is to be determined by the law of his [testator's] last domicil.'
Section 301 of the Probate Code provides that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Douglas v. Newell
...Bush v. First National Bank of Tuskaloosa, Ala., 431 So.2d 1229 (1983), contingent remaindermen interpretation; In re Brace's Estate, 180 Cal.App.2d 797, 4 Cal.Rptr. 683 (1960), validity of will as to personalty; In re Davidson's Estate, supra, charity bequest limitations; Heinneman v. Colo......
-
Phillips' Estate, In re
...235, 239, 288 P.2d 497; In re Estate of Glassford, 114 Cal.App.2d 181, 186, 249 P.2d 908, 34 A.L.R.2d 1259; In re Estate of Brace, 180 Cal.App.2d 797, 802, 4 Cal.Rptr. 683.) Next we observe the well-established rules that 'The acquisition of a new domicile is generally understood to require......
-
Wardani v. Wardani (In re Wardani)
...statute construed residency to mean "domicile." (Glassford, supra , 114 Cal.App.2d at p. 186, 249 P.2d 908 ; Estate of Brace (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 797, 802, 4 Cal.Rptr. 683 ; Estate of Phillips (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 656, 659, 75 Cal.Rptr. 301.) Section 7051 (added by Stats. 1988, ch. 1199, ......
-
Estate of Reed, Matter of
...849, 854 (1981); Thatcher v. City Terrace Cultural Center, 181 Cal.App.2d 433, 5 Cal.Rptr. 396, 407 (1960); In Re Brace's Estate, 180 Cal.App.2d 797, 4 Cal.Rptr. 683, 686 (1960); and In Re Estate of Patmore, 141 Cal.App.2d 416, 296 P.2d 863, 865 (1956). Consequently, with California law and......