Corcoran

Corcoran v. Cushing

Good Law
102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 457·2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 971·2000 Daily Journal DAR 13515·85 Cal. App. 4th 807·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10134
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 20, 2000No. A089985California6,159 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Richman, J.

In this case of first impression, we are called upon to interpret section 21350 of the Probate Code insofar as it restricts transfers to a fiduciary who “transcribes the instrument or causes it to be transcribed.” (Subd. (a)(4).) We then apply that interpretation to the will of Regis Swetmann, who left the residue of his estate to George Cushing (Cushing), his conservator (who also had, for many years, a power of attorney), who procured for decedent the company which produced the will, introduced the company representative to him, and as conservator paid for the services, but who had nothing to do with the contents of the will or its physical preparation. We conclude, contrary to the trial court, that those activities do not support the conclusion that Cushing caused the will to be transcribed. We therefore reverse.

Facts

Regis Swetmann (Regis) and Vera Swetmann (Vera) were husband and wife, who died within two months of each other, on November 2, 1997, and September 6, 1997, respectively. Regis, age 89, had-been diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer, and Vera, age 84, had been in the beginning stages of Alzheimer’s disease. The couple had no children.

Regis, a…

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.