Osborne v. Brenner

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 1090·76 Cal. App. 4th 1298·91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 149·99 Daily Journal DAR 12607·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9823
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 15, 1999B119255California1,271 words

Opinion

Opinion

Neal, J.

Summary

Photocopies of a testator’s handwritten property dispositions, included in a holographic or handwritten will, satisfy the statutory requirement that the material provisions be “in the handwriting of the testator.” Extrinsic evidence that the testator intended the handwritten instrument to be his will was properly admitted, and confirmed the validity of the instrument as a holographic will.

Facts and Trial Court Proceedings

Appellant William James Osborne is a Los Angeles lawyer who formerly represented the decedent Morris I. Brenner. Respondent Anita Susan Brenner is decedent’s daughter, named executor under Morris Brenner’s formal will of November 6, 1990. After Morris died: in May 1996, Anita petitioned for probate of Morris’s 1990 will. Osborne then filed a petition to probate a handwritten or holographic will prepared by Morris in 1995.

Osborne’s petition was heard at a court trial, at which the following evidence was presented.

In April 1995 Morris retained Osborne to represent Morris in a personal injury case. In September Morris mentioned his 1990 will to Osborne and asked Osborne to prepare a new will. Morris showed Osborne a copy of the 1990 will, 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.