Jacobson

Jacobson v. Kristovich

Good Law
1967 Cal. App. LEXIS 2221·249 Cal. App. 2d 263·57 Cal. Rptr. 332
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 8, 1967Civ. No. 30988California1,963 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Lillie, J.

The public administrator appeals from order admitting a holographic will to probate, appointing Joseph Jacobson executor and issuing to him letters testamentary, and denying the public administrator’s petition for letters of administration.

The entire instrument, written by and in the handwriting of the deceased, bears in the top right corner the purported date of its execution, “1965.” There appears to be nothing definite about this “date” except the year, the day and month having been omitted. The sole issue is whether the numerals “1965” constitute a date within the meaning or contemplation of section 53, Probate Code. The statute in pertinent part provides: “A holographic will is one that is entirely written, dated and signed by the hand of the testator himself. ...”

There is no doubt that the document written by Mrs. Hazel-wood was executed with testamentary intent. Thus, the question is whether on its face the instrument shows a substantial compliance with the mandatory requirements of section 53, Probate Code; if it does not, the writing is invalid as a holographic will.

“Last wills and testaments are entirely creatures of the legislature, and, while some of the…

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.