Schultz' Estate, In re
| Decision Date | 26 July 1960 |
| Citation | 54 Cal.2d 513,353 P.2d 921,6 Cal.Rptr. 281 |
| Parties | , 353 P.2d 921, 81 A.L.R.2d 1106 ESTATE of John C. F. SCHULTZ, Deceased. Gustave O. E. SCHULTZ, Appellant, v. Albert F. BOLZ, Respondent. L. A. 25482. |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
Thompson & Colegate, James M. Wortz, Riverside, and Elias Mansfield, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Frank W. Doherty and Raymond A. Nelson, Los Angeles, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order admitting two holographic documents to probate as the last will of the deceased, John C. F Schultz, who died on May 15, 1958. A surviving brother, Gustave O. E. Schultz, offered for probate a witnessed will executed in 1951. There also was offered for probate by Alfred F. Bolz, a friend of the deceased, two documents dated respectively, February 1, 1956, and March 22, 1959. 1 Both of these latter documents were admittedly in the deceased's handwriting. The court denied probate to the 1951 will on the ground of its revocation by the 1956 instruments and admitted to probate the latter two holographic documents as the integrated last will of the deceased.
Mr. Bolz received the February 1, 1956, document from the deceased through the mail. The record does not show whether there was an accompanying letter. the document was headed: After appointing Mr. Bolz as 'administrator' and providing for a series of $1.00 gifts to several relatives, the document concluded with a residuary clause as follows:
'All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, real, personal or mixed, wheresoever situate, of which I may die seized or possessed or to which I may be entitled at the time of my desease, I give, devise and bequeath as follow to wit:
'A--To my good friend Leopold Singwald whom owes me the Sum of $400.00 I will cancel the debt.
'B--To my beloved niece Ella (Alke) Ilse Ahrensburg in Holstein near Hamburg, Germany
'C--To my nephew Hans Ebinger and his wife in L.A.C.
'D--To Mrs. Katie Whittemore 227 So. Flower St. in L.A.C.
'E--To Tom Nelson--a Farmer in Perris, Calif.
'F--To my good friend Geneva Miller in L.A.C.
'G--To my good friend Henry Goerke
'Hereunto subscribed my Name this first day of February 1--A.D. 1956
'John C. F. Schultz
'Rt. 1--Box 287--Perris, California'
It will be noted that except for the first item in the above residuary clause, the amounts of the individual gifts are not specified. The second document was part of a letter dated March 22, 1956, which the deceased sent to Mr. Bolz. It was addressed to 'Dear Albert' and after asking for some advice relative to the presentation of a property damage claim, the letter concluded:
'Inclose you find the rest of my Will please fill in on your copy as follows:
'A--To my friend Leopold Singewald whom owes me $400.00 for over 5 years already but has always paid the intress--I will cancel that debt in case off my Death.
'B--To my beloved niece Mrs. Ella Ilse Ahrensburg in Holstein Germany $5,000.00
'C--To my nephew Hans Ebinger and his wife Ina $1000.00. They live in Los Angeles 7--Calif.
'D--To Mrs. Katie Whittemore $100.00 her Adr. is 227 So. Flower Str. Los Angeles Calif.
'E--To my friend Tom Nelson $100.00 in Perris Calif.
'F--To my friend Geneva Miller in Los Angeles Calif. $100.00 One Hundred Dollars
'G--To my friend Henry Goerke $100.00 One Hundred Do
'All the rest, residue and remainder I do hereby bequeath to Albert F. Bolz 637 Covina Blvd. San Dimas Calif.
'Hereunto subscribed my name this first day of February 1--A.D. 1956.
Rt. 1--Box 287--Perris--California'
The deceased had written other letters to Mr. Bolz shortly prior to and after the March 22, 1956, letter. They were: (1) a letter dated March 19, 1956, wherein the deceased stated: 'Next time I send you the list of names for my new will and how much for each'; (2) a letter dated March 20, 1956, wherein the deceased noted: ; and (3) a letter postmarked March 23, 1956, wherein the deceased wrote: The first two letters were informally signed 'Your sincere friend John.' The third letter was unsigned and contained a separately written list of the relatives and friends of the deceased, with their gift amounts identically stated as in the specific listing of the March 22, 1956, letter.
There was no evidence that an original holographic will had ever been seen in decedent's possession, and after his death a thorough search of his home and personal effects was made but no other documents purporting to be a will were discovered. In these circumstances, the trial court found that the offered holographic documents of February 1, 1956, and March 22, 1956, were written with testamentary intent and constituted the last will and testament of the deceased.
Appellant concedes that each of the two documents satisfies the formal requirements for an holographic will 2 but he argues: (1) that there is no substantial evidence that the decedent executed either of the documents with animus testandi, i. e., that he executed either document with the intention that it should be anything other than a non-testamentary copy of an original will which he must have kept in his own possession; and (2) that in any event the case is governed by a presumption that the original will, of which the probated documents constitute a copy, and which it must be inferred that decedent had executed, was destroyed by the decedent with the intent of revoking the same.
We have concluded that in all substantial respects, this case is governed by Estate of Janes, 18 Cal.2d 512, 116 P.2d 438. In Janes we reversed an order of the probate court refusing probate to a document which in form satisfied all of the requirements of an holographic will, but which had a notation attached to it in the decedent's handwriting reading: 'This is a copy of my last will, the original is in my safe deposit box.' 18 Cal.2d at page 514, 116 P.2d at page 440. Of the claim that the instrument was not intended to have testamentary effect because the decedent had designated it a copy we said, after noting 'the policy of the law favoring testacy rather than intestacy' (18 Cal.2d at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knego v. Grover
... ... Petra J. Jorgensen, Cross-Defendant ... Martin J. KNEGO as administrator with will annexed in the Estate of Christine Oline Grover, deceased, Plaintiff and Respondent, ... Horace James GROVER, aka James H. Grover, Defendant and Appellant ... Civ. 6760 ... (Estate of Schultz, 54 Cal.2d 513, 518, 6 Cal.Rptr. 281, 353 P.2d 921, 81 A.L.R.2d 1106; Primm v. Primm, 46 Cal.2d 690, 694, 299 P.2d 231.) ... ALLEGED ERROR IN ... ...
-
Bishop's Estate, In re
...equally deducible therefrom, were decided by the trial court in favor of the prevailing party (Estate of Schultz, 54 Cal.2d 513, 518, 6 Cal.Rptr. 281, 353 P.2d 921, 81 A.L.R.2d 1106; Thomas v. Hunt Mfg. Corp., 42 Cal.2d 734, 736, 269 P.2d 12); only substantial evidence will suffice to suppo......
-
Walker v. Los Angeles County
...inferences made by the trial court from undisputed evidence will not be disturbed by the reviewing court. Estate of Schultz, 54 Cal.2d 513, 518, 6 Cal.Rptr. 281, 353 P.2d 921. Defendants argue that this is not properly a case for declaratory relief because there is mo justiciable controvers......
-
Welker v. Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation
...which reasonably may be drawn therefrom present issues of fact for determination by the trier of fact. Estate of Schultz, 54 Cal.2d 513, 518, 6 Cal.Rptr. 281, 353 P.2d 921; Hamilton v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 12 Cal.2d 598, 602-603, 86 P.2d 829; Coutts v. Grant, 184 Cal.App.2d 255, 257, 7 Ca......