Bonenfant

Bonenfant v. Tabery

Good Law
112 Cal. App. 3d 81·169 Cal. Rptr. 126·1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 2436
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 14, 1980Civ. No. 48141California580 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Poché, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying probate to a handwritten instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of the deceased.

Aline Bonenfant Rudolph died August 16, 1978. In an uncontested proceeding her formally executed will and codicil signed in 1956 and in 1960 respectively were admitted to probate and respondent was appointed administrator with the will annexed. Four months later appel *83 lant, decedent’s sister, petitioned both for revocation of that order and for admission to probate of the holograph which does not mention a month of execution. It is dated simply “Monday 26, 1978.”

Without objection the trial court took judicial notice that in the year 1978 only once did the 26th day of a month occur on a Monday: in June. Nevertheless, the petition was denied on the sole ground the document did not contain an “entire” date.

We reverse.

It has long been recognized that the statutory * requirement of a date serves two purposes: (1) it allows evaluation of testamentary capacity as of the specific time the instrument was executed, and (2) in situations like this where more than one document is offered for probate, it permits determination of which is…

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.