Estate of Shannon
274 Cal. Rptr. 338, 224 Cal. App. 3d 1148 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A general disinheritance clause in a will that does not specifically mention or contemplate a future marriage is insufficient to disinherit a spouse whom the testator marries after executing the will. Under California Probate Code § 6560, such a spouse is considered an omitted spouse and is entitled to an intestate share of the estate unless a statutory exception is clearly established.
Facts:
- On January 25, 1974, Russell Donovan Shannon, an unmarried widower, executed his last will and testament.
- The will named his daughter, Beatrice Marie Saleski, as the sole beneficiary and executrix.
- The will contained a general disinheritance clause stating, 'I have intentionally omitted all other living persons and relatives' and further sought to disinherit any 'legal heir' who might contest the will.
- On April 27, 1986, approximately 12 years after executing the will, Russell married Lila Demos Shannon.
- Russell died on February 22, 1988, without having made any changes to his 1974 will after his marriage to Lila.
Procedural Posture:
- Russell Shannon's 1974 will was admitted to probate in the superior court (probate court), and his daughter, Beatrice Saleski, was named executrix.
- Lila Shannon, the surviving spouse, filed a petition in the probate court for determination of entitlement to estate distribution as an omitted surviving spouse.
- The probate court denied Lila's petition to determine heirship.
- Lila Shannon (appellant) filed a timely appeal of the probate court's order to the Court of Appeals of California.
- During the appeal, Lila died, and Gilbert A. Brown, the executor of her estate, was substituted as the appellant, with Beatrice Marie Saleski remaining as the respondent.
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 general disinheritance clause in a will, which purports to disinherit all 'legal heirs' and 'other living persons,' show a clear and intentional failure to provide for a spouse whom the testator married 12 years after the will's execution, thereby rebutting the statutory presumption that the spouse is an 'omitted spouse' entitled to a share of the estate under Probate Code § 6560?
Opinions:
Majority - Huffman, Acting P.J.
No. A general disinheritance clause does not prevent a subsequently married spouse from inheriting as an omitted spouse. The law creates a strong presumption that a spouse omitted from a premarital will is entitled to a share of the estate, and this presumption can only be rebutted if one of the specific exceptions in Probate Code § 6561 is met. The burden of proof is on the will's proponent to show that the testator’s failure to provide for the spouse was intentional and that this intention appears on the face of the will. General exclusionary language, such as omitting 'all other living persons' or 'any legal heir,' is insufficient because it does not demonstrate that the testator contemplated a future marriage and intended to disinherit that future spouse. Citing precedents like Estate of Axcelrod, the court held that such general clauses do not disinherit a person who was not a potential heir at the time the will was made. As there was no mention of Lila or the prospect of a future marriage in Russell's will, the will fails to manifest the required intent to disinherit her. Furthermore, the other statutory exceptions—a transfer outside the will in lieu of a testamentary provision or a valid waiver—were not proven.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the strong public policy in California favoring the protection of omitted spouses. It clarifies that boilerplate or general disinheritance clauses are ineffective against a spouse acquired after the execution of a will. For estate planners, the case serves as a clear warning that if a testator wishes to disinherit a future spouse, the will must contain explicit language demonstrating that the testator contemplated a future marriage and intentionally decided to exclude that future spouse. This holding limits the use of extrinsic evidence and reinforces the principle that the intent to disinherit a future spouse must appear from the four corners of the will itself.
