Geniac

Geniac v. Kaplan

Good Law
1 Cal. App. 3d 212·1969 Cal. App. LEXIS 1269·81 Cal. Rptr. 568
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 27, 1969Civ. No. 34576California948 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Schweitzer, J.

Appellant, daughter of decedent, filed a petition for letters of administration. Respondent, a stranger, named executor in a document claimed to be a holographic will, filed a petition for probate of the purported will and for letters testamentary. Both petitions came on for hearing on January 20, 1969. No evidence was offered, appellant arguing that the purported will was invalid on its face since it was not entirely written, dated and signed by the decedent. (Prob. Code, § 53.) Appellant relied on Estate of Bower, 11 Cal.2d 180 [ 78 P.2d 1012 ], respondent on Estate of Baker, 59 Cal.2d 680 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 33 , 381 P.2d 913 ], both dealing with the incorporation of printed material into holographic wills. Following argument the petitions were taken under submission. On January 21, 1969, the court by minute orders denied the petition for letters of administration, and apparently for the purpose of permitting appellant to file a contest before probate, continued the petition for probate of will and for letters testamentary to a future date.

Thereafter appellant filed a contest before probate alleging (1) that the will was not executed as required by law, (2) that 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.