Sturtevant

Sturtevant v. Greater Los Angeles Zoo Ass'n

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 523·56 Cal. App. 4th 48·64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 805·97 Daily Journal DAR 8346·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5218
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 27, 1997No. B099003California1,962 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Vogelmiriam, J.

*50 Opinion

We hold in this case that where, as here, a decedent’s will attempts to specify the manner in which death taxes are to be allocated but does so in an ambiguous manner, extrinsic evidence is admissible to clarify the decedent’s intent. We also hold that a direction in a will, as construed with the aid of extrinsic evidence, that all death taxes are to be paid by the residuary estate created by a living trust executed at the same time as the will and as part of an integrated testamentary plan satisfies the requirements of subdivision (b)(1) of section 20110 of the Probate Code 1 and qualifies as a specific direction by the decedent that all estate taxes are to be satisfied as directed and not prorated as provided in subdivision (a) of section 20110.

Facts

On August 19, 1988, Margaret C. Wathen executed an integrated testamentary plan comprised of two documents, a will and a living trust. In her will, Wathen (divorced and with no issue) left her entire estate to the trustee of her living trust, with directions to distribute it according to the terms of the trust. Among other things, the will provides that if the trust should fail for any reason, its terms are to be…

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.