Estate of Neider

Good Law
243 Cal. App. 2d 102·52 Cal. Rptr. 47
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 23, 1966Civ. No. 22896California3,756 words

Opinion

Opinion

Thomas J. Cunningham, John E. Landon, Milton H. Gordon and Jeffrey W. Horner for Objector and Appellant.

Koford, McLeod & Koford, George M. McLeod, Myers, Praetzel & Pierce, Robert P. Praetzel and Orlando J. Bowman for Petitioners and Respondents.

TAYLOR, J.

The main question presented by this appeal from a judgment determining heirship in the estate of S. Neider is whether the probate court correctly decided that the testator's direction for an equal division of the residue constitutes a clear, unambiguous direction against proration of the federal estate tax within the meaning of section 970 of the Probate Code and that the specific legatee was exonerated from the burden of the tax. Appellant, The Regents of the University of California (hereafter University) argues that its 50 percent share of the residue is to be computed after proration of the tax as to all legatees. Respondents are: Pacific National Bank (hereafter Bank), executor of the estate; William R. Dobson, trustee of the E & C Cute Trust, the specific legatee (hereafter Dobson); and the other general legatees (hereafter Neider).

The facts are not in dispute. The testator, a resident of San Francisco, died on…

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.