Estate of Guidotti
109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 674 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A condition in a will that terminates a beneficiary's interest upon remarriage is an invalid restraint on marriage under Civil Code § 710 if the testator's primary intent, evidenced by the will's language and extrinsic evidence, was to penalize or prevent the beneficiary from remarrying, rather than simply to provide support until a new marriage.
Facts:
- Earl Guidotti created a will establishing a testamentary trust for the benefit of his wife, Darlene Guidotti.
- The trust provided Darlene with net income for her lifetime.
- A clause in the trust stipulated that all income payments and the power to invade the trust's principal for support would cease if she remarried or lived with a man as though married.
- The attorney who drafted Earl's will provided a declaration stating that Earl was 'extremely jealous' of Darlene.
- The drafting attorney also declared that Earl specifically instructed him to draft the will to 'severely penalize' Darlene and 'prevent' her from remarrying or cohabitating after his death.
Procedural Posture:
- After the death of her husband, Earl Guidotti, Darlene Guidotti filed a petition in the probate court (a trial-level court) to reform his will.
- Darlene argued that the clause terminating her income upon remarriage was a void restraint on marriage.
- The probate court denied the petition, ruling that the clause was a valid limitation on the gift, not a void restraint on marriage.
- Darlene Guidotti (appellant) appealed the probate court's order to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a clause in a testamentary trust that terminates a surviving spouse's income interest upon remarriage or cohabitation constitute a void restraint on marriage when extrinsic evidence shows the testator's primary intent was to penalize the spouse and prevent a new relationship?
Opinions:
Majority - Gilbert, P. J.
Yes. A clause in a testamentary trust that terminates a surviving spouse's income interest upon remarriage or cohabitation constitutes a void restraint on marriage when the testator's primary intent was to penalize the beneficiary and prevent a new relationship. California Civil Code § 710 voids conditions that restrain marriage but permits limitations intended only to provide support 'until marriage.' The court's primary task is to determine the testator's intent. Here, the uncontroverted extrinsic evidence from the drafting attorney's declaration unequivocally shows that Earl Guidotti’s intent was not to provide for Darlene until she found new support, but rather to jealously restrain and penalize her for forming any new relationship. This punitive intent places the clause squarely within the category of a void restraint on marriage, not a permissible limitation.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of California's statute against restraints on marriage, emphasizing the critical role of testator intent in distinguishing a void 'restraint' from a valid 'limitation.' The court confirms that extrinsic evidence, such as testimony from a drafting attorney, is highly persuasive in determining if a condition is punitive and controlling, rather than supportive. This precedent reinforces the public policy favoring the freedom to marry and limits a testator's ability to exert posthumous control over a beneficiary's personal life, making it harder to enforce such clauses if a punitive intent can be demonstrated.
Unlock the full brief for Estate of Guidotti