Grunauer v. Friedman

Good Law
100 Cal. App. 3d 810·161 Cal. Rptr. 311·1979 Cal. App. LEXIS 2477
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 17, 1979Civ. 57228California3,417 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lillie, J.

Joyce Grunauer, daughter of decedent Eudice Friedman and a beneficiary under decedent’s will, filed a petition in the probate proceeding for determination of interests under the will and for interpretation of the will. (Prob. Code, § 1080.) The petition sought a determination whether Joyce’s filing of a complaint for damages, a constructive trust and other relief against Daniel Friedman, decedent’s surviving husband, would violate the in terrorem clause of the will and if so, which rights and interests under the will would thereby be forfeited. The court made an order determining that petitioner’s filing of the proposed complaint would constitute a violation of the in terrorem clause. Petitioner appeals from the order.

Appellant contends that enforcement of a forfeiture for violation of an in terrorem clause is barred by the prohibition against forfeiture contained in Civil Code section 3369. In support of this contention, appellant cites a law review article in which the author concludes that such a rule should be adopted in California. (Selvin, Comment: Terror in Probate (1964) 16 Stan.L.Rev. 355, 366-368.) Even if we agreed with the reasons advanced by the author for…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.