Lampkin's Estate, In re
| Decision Date | 08 May 1962 |
| Citation | 203 Cal.App.2d 374,21 Cal.Rptr. 513 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In the Matter of the ESTATE of R. C. LAMPKIN, also known as Robert Charles Lampkin, Deceased. Jim SMITH, Proponent of Will and Appellant, v. James C. HART, William Morgan Lee, Addie Vaughn, Morris Lampkin, Marie Stancil, Eli Hutchinson, Robert Hutchinson, Clarence Lampkin, and Inez Lampkin, Contestants and Respondents. Civ. 10260. |
Carroll Single, Edson & Weigand, Oakland, and Joseph I. Omachi, Stockton, for appellant.
Charles A. James, Stockton, for respondents.
Jim Smith, proponent and sole beneficiary of a holographic instrument, appeals from the judgment of nonsuit and from the order appointing James C. Hart the administrator of the estate of Robert C. Lampkin.
Robert Lampkin, who had never been married and had no children, was 60 years of age, retired, and living alone in a small house that he owned. Smith, who also lived alone, was 68 years of age and a dealer in junk. He had been a friend of Lampkin's since 1932 and had been in the habit of stopping daily to visit with Lampkin. On the 25th of January 1960, Lampkin asked Smith to come into his house. He then gave him the instrument in question. The following day Smith stopped by Lampkin's home and receiving no response from Lampkin, he returned to his home, obtained the instrument, and went to the sheriff's office. Two deputies returned with Smith to the Lampkin home and found Lampkin dead.
Smith petitioned for letters of administration and for probate of the holographic instrument he had received from Lampkin. Contestants, two brothers and seven nieces and nephews, filed a petition for letters of administration and requested that their petition be heard on the same date as that of Smith.
At the hearing the court considered the following written instrument offered by Smith for probate:
'to Whom it May Consern
'I here by do give it Jim Smith. who live at 3444 Phelp St. all of the Junk around here in my Cabin and Yard old Cars and Every thing.
'R. C. Lampkin
3252 Sharps Lane
550-12-6842-A
Social Secuerity'
Respondents contested the admission of this instrument on the ground that the instrument was not testamentary in character.
The court determined that since the instrument was not ambiguous on its face (that decedent intended to make a present gift), the statement made by Lampkin to Smith when he delivered the instrument, 'Here, Jim, here's a will I write you, take it and put in your pocket,' was inadmissible to show decedent's intent as to the character of the instrument, and was, therefore, stricken. The court granted the motion of contestants for nonsuit, entered judgment accordingly, and appointed James C. Hart, a nephew of decedent, as administrator of Lampkin's estate.
It is settled that before an instrument may be probated as a will it must appear from its terms, viewed in the light of the surrounding circumstances, that it was executed with testamentary intent. (Estate of Golder, 31 Cal.2d 848, 193 P.2d 465.) However, because the law favors testacy rather than intestacy, if the prerequisite testamentary intent does not appear on the face of the instrument reference may be made to the circumstances of its execution, and the language will be construed in the light of these circumstances. (Estate of Spitzer, 196 Cal. 301, 237 P. 739; Estate of Spies, 86 Cal.App.2d 87, 194 P.2d 83.) Moreover, when the instrument on its face shows that it was written by an inexperienced or illiterate person, it should be construed more liberally than if it had been drawn by an expert. (1 Page, Wills, sec. 6.2, p. 228.)
In view of the above...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Geffene
...of Crick, 230 Cal.App.2d 513, 519, 41 Cal.Rptr. 120; Estate of French, 225 Cal.App.2d 9, 16, 36 Cal.Rptr. 908; Estate of Lampkin, 203 Cal.App.2d 374, 376, 21 Cal.Rptr. 513.) The natural and only reasonable meaning of Mrs. Geffene's statement, 'Forget about it' is not 'forget about having a ......
-
Nelson's Estate, Matter of
...70 S.D. 89, 15 N.W.2d 1; SDCL 30--15--7. See also In Re Sargavak's Estate, 1950, 35 Cal.2d 93, 216 P.2d 850; In Re Lampkin's Estate, 1962, 203 Cal.App.2d 374, 21 Cal.Rptr. 513. The burden of proving testamentary intent is on the proponent. Proponent must show not that the decedent realized ......
-
Wolfe's Estate, In re
...inexperienced or illiterate person, it may be construed more liberally than if it had been drawn by an expert. (Estate of Lampkin (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 374, 376, 21 Cal.Rptr. 513 (citing 1 Page, supra, § 6.2, p. Under the foregoing rules and the known circumstances in which Ernest Wolfe wro......
-
Crick's Estate, In re
...testamentary disposition. From the evidence, the word 'real' should be interpreted to mean a formal witnessed will. (Estate of Lampkin, 203 Cal.App.2d 374, 21 Cal.Rptr. 513; Estate of Button, supra, 209 Cal. 325, 287 P. In addition, the trial court, over objections, received in evidence tes......