Garibaldi's Estate, In re

Decision Date22 December 1961
Citation57 Cal.2d 108,367 P.2d 39,17 Cal.Rptr. 623
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 367 P.2d 39 In re ESTATE of Theresa GARIBALDI, Deceased. Joseph GARIBALDI et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. Henry GARIBALDI et al., Contestants and Respondents. Sac. 7106.

Wilke, Fleury & Sapunor, Richard H. Hoffelt and Howard A. Potts, Sacramento, for petitioners and appellants.

Mazzera, Snyder & DeMartini and J. Calvert Snyder, Stockton, for contestants and respondents.

GIBSON, Chief Justice.

A document offered as the holographic will of the decedent, Theresa Garibaldi, was denied probate on the ground that it was procured by undue influence. The three proponents (Leona, Joseph, and Leo) and the five contestants (Elvira, Edith, Henry, Clarence, and Raymond) are the surviving children and sole heirs at law of decedent.

Decedent died in October 1956 at the age of 87. The holographic document, which was written in Italian less than four months before her death, was translated as follows:

'June 16, 1956

'I declare that I, Leona, Joe and Leo are partners in the properties and in the debts. Therefore I will that my share be divided into equal shares to Leona, Joe, and Leo.

'And we partners must pay Elvira, Edith, Henry, Clarence, and Raymond $7,000.

Theresa Garibaldi.'

Decedent's husband died in 1939 leaving her three parcels of real property referred to as the home ranch, the river ranch, and the mountain ranch. Her net worth at that time was approximately $46,800. The ranches, which were enlarged by purchases, greatly appreciated in value and were worth about $700,000 at the time of her death. She lived at the home ranch with the proponents, who were not married. The contestants had been raised on the home ranch but upon marriage each had moved away, apparently prior to 1939. They often visited and helped decedent, and some of them took care of her at times. She was fond of all her children and grandchildren, and on several occasions, including once in April 1956, she stated that she wanted all her children to share equally in any property she might leave.

During the last eight years of her life decedent suffered from a number of ailments including hypertension, sciatica, arteriosclerosis, hernia, diverticulosis of the colon, dyspnea, pleural effusion, nonfunctioning gall bladder, portal cirrhosis, and hypertrophic arthritis of the spine. She was under the constant care of a physician and was hospitalized on five occasions, once for a period of seven months. For more than two years prior to her death she had a special nurse and was unable to walk by herself. Her speech was hesitant and fumbling for the last four or five months, and her mind was 'not too clear.'

After the death of decedent's husband, proponents managed her business affairs except for the mountain ranch which was managed by Henry. She trusted her children and would sign without question any instrument they would give her. Proponents testified that an oral partnership was formed, and partnership income tax returns were filed in the names of decedent and proponents. Bank accounts in the joint names of decedent and proponents contained about $3,500 at the time of her death; additional accounts opened in 1949 and 1950 in the names of proponents alone contained approximately $80,000. The funds in all of these accounts were derived from ranch operations. Other receipts from ranch operations were used to purchase over 2,500 acres of land, title to which was taken solely in the name of one or more of the proponents.

Proponents never made an accounting to their mother. Although Joseph claimed that he discussed business matters with her on numerous occasions, he admitted that discussions of her net worth after 1939 were based on the figures for that year, and he did not recall informing her of her net worth as of any subsequent year. When contestants visited their mother they did not discuss business matters with her and were specifically warned not to do so by proponents who said that such discussions would upset her. From time to time Henry brought to the home ranch checks aggregating $100,000 in favor of decedent for the sale of timber from the mountain ranch. At first he gave them to his mother, but during the last five or six years before her death he left them with Leona because she told him not to show them to decedent but to leave them with her and she would take care of them. Contestants did not learn of the alleged partnership agreement until after her death.

According to Joseph, decedent had several discussions with him, Leo and Leona about giving the five contestants a share of their father's estate, and decedent said that she wanted to give each of them one-ninth of the 1939 estimate of the estate, which would amount to $5,200 each, but he and Leo told her to give the contestants $7,000 each so that Henry could see they were 'overpaid.'

In August of 1949 Joseph took his mother to the office of an attorney who was instructed to prepare a deed granting all of her real property to proponents, an instrument by which contestants would release to proponents all rights to succeed to property owned or thereafter acquired by their mother, an assignment to proponents of decedent's rights under certain timber contracts, and a 'Statement Concerning Distribution of the Theresa Garibaldi Property' which recited that she had decided to give $7,000 to each contestant and the rest of her real and personal property to the proponents because they had stayed on the property and helped her to manage it. Decedent had never been to the attorney's office before and never returned there.

In September of 1949, decedent went with Joseph and Leona to a notary, signed the deed, and had her signature acknowledged. None of the contestants learned of the deed until after her death, and it was not recorded until 1958. In September of 1949 after the deed was signed Joseph asked Raymond to come to the home ranch, and when he arrived Joseph handed him a check for $7,000, stating that it was a gift. Raymond signed a paper which Joseph said was 'just to cash the checks.' In fact, the paper was the release of rights in his mother's property. Henry, who came to the home ranch later that day, was also asked by Joseph to accept a check for $7,000 and sign the release, but he refused to do so.

Contestants first learned of the existence of the will about five months after decedent's death when they received a letter from Teresa Corsiglia, an attorney to whom Joseph had taken the will. Decedent had never met Miss Corsiglia, and there is evidence from which it could be inferred that she was Joseph's attorney. The letter stated that decedent had left a will which provided that all her property should go to proponents upon condition that they pay contestants $7,000 each and also stated that Joseph...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • McCauley's Estate, In re
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • 11 Mayo 1966
    ...undue influence of that beneficiary exercised by him in part by means of such fraudulent representations. In re Garibaldi's Estate, 57 Cal.2d 108, 17 Cal.Rptr. 623, 367 P.2d 39 (1961). Third, it would be error for the trial court to refuse to allow an amendment of a pleading to conform to p......
  • Goetz' Estate, In re
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 1 Agosto 1967
    ...in the procurement of the will and undue profit to him. (Estate of Graves, 202 Cal. 258, 262, 259 P. 935; Estate of Garibaldi, 57 Cal.2d 108, 113, 17 Cal.Rptr. 623, 367 P.2d 39.) Respondent does not dispute the existence of the confidential relationship. But all three elements are needed fo......
  • Estate of Mann
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 19 Agosto 1986
    ...equally between the nephews. (Estate of Gelonese (1974) 36 Cal.App.3d 854, 866, 111 Cal.Rptr. 833; Estate of Garibaldi (1961) 57 Cal.2d 108, 110, 17 Cal.Rptr. 623, 367 P.2d 39.) Assuming this testimony to be true, however, in light of the respective relationships with decedent, it cannot be......
  • Wieland v. Savino (In re Kosmo Family Trust)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 14 Julio 2022
    ...by the testamentary instrument" ( Rice v. Clark, 28 Cal. 4th at 96–97, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 522, 47 P.3d at 304 ; see Estate of Garibaldi, 57 Cal. 2d 108, 113, 17 Cal.Rptr. 623, 367 P.2d 39, 42 [1961] ; Keading v. Keading, 60 Cal. App. 5th 1115, 1127, 275 Cal.Rptr.3d 338 [2021] ; Estate of Sarab......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Hearsay Evidence in Trust and Estate Litigation
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Trusts & Estates Quarterly (CLA) No. 11-3, March 2005
    • Invalid date
    ...933.17. Law. Rev. Com. Comment to Evidence Code § 1252.18. Dinneen v. Younger (1943) 57 Cal. App. 2d 200.19. Estate of Garibaldi (1961) 57 Cal.2d 108, Estate of Yale (1931) 214 Cal. 115.20. Estate of Truckenmiller (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 326.21. Estate of Jones (1913) 166 Cal. 108.22. Estate o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT