Heckel

Heckel v. Gilfillan

Good Law
131 Cal. Rptr. 841·1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 1789·60 Cal. App. 3d 975
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 12, 1976Civ. No. 2859California2,318 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Franson, J.

Statement of Case and Facts

Appellant petitioned the superior court for probate of a purported holographic document signed by the decedent and dated May 21, 1972, which devised all of decedent’s property to the appellant and C. O. Beck, *977 decedent’s sister, and appointed appellant executrix. After a hearing the trial court found that the document was invalid as a will and denied its admission to probate.

The document is contained on a printed will form commonly available at stationery stores. The pertinent portion of the document states .(the italicized portions denoting the decedent’s handwriting):

Appellant has appealed from the judgment denying the document’s admission to probate.

Discussion

Because no extrinsic contradictory evidence was presented to the court below, we must independently determine the validity of the document as a matter of law. (Estate of Baker (1963) 59 Cal.2d 680, 683 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 33 , 381 P.2d 913 ].)

Probate Code section 53 provides: “A holographic will is one that is entirely written, dated and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and need not be witnessed. No address, date or other matter…

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.