Good's Estate, In re
| Decision Date | 11 December 1956 |
| Citation | 146 Cal.App.2d 704,304 P.2d 196 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Matter of the ESTATE of Harry E. GOOD, deceased. Mary G. YOUNG, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Clinton J. TRUMP et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 21850. |
Lillian J. McQuitty, Hollywood, William E. Swiney, Bakersfield, for appellant.
Birger Tinglof, Los Angeles, for respondents.
We have an appeal by Mary G. Young from a judgment in a non-jury case, denying probate to a witnessed will of Harry E. Good, dated June 29, 1954, and admitting to probate a holographic will of the decedent dated May 7, 1953. The court found in accordance with the allegations of the contest that on June 29, 1954, deceased was suffering from serious illness, was in a weakened physical condition, with impaired mental faculties, was under the undue influence, duress and dominion of Mary G. Young and that execution of the will was procured through the exercise of said undue influence. It was also found, as alleged in the contest, that decedent was not of sound and disposing mind and memory and was by reason of age and infirmity of body and mind mentally incompetent to make the will and that he did not know what he was doing when he signed it. The court found that the will of May 7, 1953, was duly, legally and properly exceuted and was a valid holographic will.
The sole ground of appeal is insufficiency of the evidence to support the court's findings upon the issues of unsoundness of mind and undue influence. In presenting the contention as to the finding of undue influence appellant's opening brief devotes somewhat less than four pages to what is called a statement of facts. Less than one page of this statement has any relation to the evidence pertinent to the issue of undue influence and this consists of a sketchy recital of the circumstances under which the will was prepared by an attorney selected by Mrs. Young, following the written request of decedent that she take the matter up with a particular lawyer whom she was unable to interest in the matter. It appears from the statement the will was written in Los Angeles and taken to Sacramento by Mrs. Young's brother, where it was executed by decedent in a rest home in which he was then hospitalized. No reply brief was filed by appellant. The brief of the appellant generates not even a faint idea respecting the evidence that caused the court to find for contestants on the issue of undue influence. And the meager statement of facts is not supported by transcript references. The brief concludes with the request that appellant 'nevertheless respectfully prays that all evidence in this case be examined as a measure of what is substantial evidence.'
The trial lasted for four days. The transcript of the oral proceedings comprises 453 pages; the contestants produced the testimony of 9 witnesses and they introduced into evidence 20 or more exhibits.
We have had occasion to remark before in a similar situation that a claim of insufficiency of the evidence to justify findings, consisting of mere assertion without a fair statement of the evidence, is entitled to no consideration, when it is apparent, as it is here, that a substantial amount of evidence was received on behalf of the respondents. Instead of a fair and sincere effort to show that the trial court was wrong, appellant's brief is a mere challenge to respondents to prove that the court was right. And it is an attempt to place upon the court the burden of discovering without assistance from appellant any weakness in the arguments of the respondents. An appellant is not permitted to evade or shift his responsibility in this manner. In re Palmer's Estate, Cal.App., 302 P.2d 629. And upon more than one occasion we have called attention to our statement to the same effect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate and Guardianship of Turk, In re
...it is apparent, as it is here, that a substantial amount of evidence was received on behalf of the respondents.' In re Estate of Good, 146 Cal.App.2d 704, 706, 304 P.2d 196, 197. In the circumstances we are entitled to accept the statements of respondent's brief as to the evidence upon the ......
-
Atlas Terminals, Inc. v. Sokol
... ... ]; and if the restrictions are of substantial value to the convenantees, equity may enforce them though serious injury result to the servient estate [citations].' ... Bortz v. Troth, 359 Pa. 326, 59 A.2d 93, 97: 'What appellee in effect suggests, and what the court en banc bas ... ...
-
Maurice L. Bein, Inc. v. Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles
... ... As we said in Re Estate of Good, 146 Cal.App.2d 704, at page 706, 304 P.2d 196, at page 197: ... 'We have had occasion to remark before in a similar situation that a ... said writ of execution upon the Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, Main Office, Los Angeles, California, for all moneys, goods, credits, effects, debts due or owing, or any personal property of said defendant, including the bank account of said defendant entitled 'Housing ... ...
-
Davis v. Lucas
... ... Rep. P 70,473 ... John A. DAVIS, Plaintiff and Respondent, ... Kathryn B. LUCAS, individually, and Kathryn B. Lucas, as Executrix of the Estate of Gladys B. Davis, Deceased, Defendant and Appellant ... Civ. 23990 ... District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California ... ...