a. as a witness, subsequent disclaimer cannot transfer

a. Fact  Parsons(Geneve Parsons) set up her will on May 3, 1976.

There were 3 witnesses forGeneve Parsons’s will. Their names are EvelynNielson, Marie Gower, and Bob Warda. They sighed as witnesses. Nielson (EvelynNielson), Marie Gower (Gower) are beneficiaries in this will. Nielson would inherit$100 from this will. Gower would inherit real property from this will.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Parsons passed away on December 13, 1976. Provate was going on. Next year, Nielsongave up $ 100 bequest from Parsons.

Roger (Roger Winelander) was Parsons relative. Roger filed a suit against Gowerinsisting that this will is invalid. Trial Court rejected. Gower appealed. Gower was respondent.

Roger was appeallant.  b. Issue   If a person has some interestby the will, Is he deserved to be witness in the will? c. Rule  Cal.

Prob.Code § 51 statesthat all beneficial devises, bequests and legacies to a subscribing witness arevoid unless there are two other and disinterested subscribing witnesses to thewill, except that if such interested witness would be entitled to any share ofthe estate of the testator in case the will were not established, he shall takesuch proportion of the devise or bequest made to him in the will as does notexceed the share of the estate which would be distributed to him if the willwere not established.  d.

Application According to Cal. Prob. Code § 51, there must be two other and disinterestedsubscribing witnesses to the will.

Here, Roger insisted that there existed only one disinterestedsubscribing witnesses, Bob Warda because Nielson,Gower are beneficiaries in this will. Nielson contended that Nielson gave uphis $ 100 bequest after Parsons’s death, therefore, Nielson was not interestedwitness any more. Rogerrebut that even though Nielson gave up his $ 100 bequest aftersubscribing the will as a witness, subsequent disclaimer cannot transferinterested witness into disinterested witness.

Gower insisted that argument of Roger isvery technical and disregard to purpose of Parsons. Parsons wanted to leave hisasset to persons as named in the will, not to remote relatives. There was notany fraud or undue influence.   The Court told that thestatute of frauds of 1676 required that devises of land be attested andsubscribed “by three or four credible witnesses, or else they shall beutterly void. Here, credible means that the person has no interest as awitness. Adding this, the basic function of subscribing will begin when thewill executed.

However, Nielson gave up his $ 100 bequest after execution ofthe will. If the law admit subsequent disclaimer, it would disregard themeaning Cal. Prob. Code § 51 e. ConclusionTheCourt of Appeal held that Nielson’s disclaim was not effective, thus Nielsonwould be interested witness.

The Court of Appeal reversed the judgement ofTrial Court.Estateof Parsons


I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out