In Re Estate of Prager
166 Cal. 450, 137 P. 37, 1913 Cal. LEXIS 345 (1913)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A surviving spouse is presumed to take both her one-half interest in community property and any testamentary gifts from the deceased spouse's will, unless the will clearly and unambiguously manifests an intent to compel an election between the two, or the parties enter into a binding settlement agreement to resolve conflicting claims.
Facts:
- Charles Prager died on September 14, 1911, leaving a will.
- The will directed that all real property outside Los Angeles be distributed to ten named devisees, including Fannie Prager Cohn and Celia Prager Cohn, and bequeathed 'all the rest, residue and remainder' of his estate, including property within Los Angeles and other personal property, to his wife, Mary J. Prager.
- A significant portion of Charles Prager's estate, including the real property devised to the ten individuals, was community property.
- Shortly after Charles Prager's death, Mary J. Prager informed the devisees that she claimed her one-half share of the community property in addition to the bequests made to her in the will.
- Fannie Prager Cohn and Celia Prager Cohn initially opposed Mary J. Prager's claim, arguing she was required to elect between taking under the will or as a survivor of the community.
- Celia Prager Cohn eventually abandoned her opposition, leaving Fannie Prager Cohn as the sole remaining contestant of Mary J. Prager's claim.
- Mary J. Prager and all beneficiaries under paragraph second of the will, including Fannie Prager Cohn, entered into an agreement to settle their conflicting claims.
- As part of this settlement, Fannie Prager Cohn received a share of the profit from an option to purchase the devised property and an assignment of Lesser Prager's interest in the estate, in exchange for agreeing to waive her objection to the widow's claims.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Prager died, and his will entered probate proceedings.
- A decree of partial distribution was issued by the trial court, distributing one-half of the real property outside Los Angeles to Mary J. Prager as the surviving widow, and the other one-half to the ten persons named in paragraph second of the will, including Fannie Prager Cohn.
- Subsequently, the trial court made a decree of settlement of final account and of distribution, distributing the residue of the estate to Mary J. Prager.
- Fannie Prager Cohn, one of the devisees, appealed from this decree of settlement of final account and of distribution to the Supreme Court of California.
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 surviving spouse, in the absence of clear testamentary intent, have to elect between her community property interest and specific bequests in her deceased spouse's will, or is she entitled to both, and can a beneficiary subsequently contest a widow's claim after entering into a binding settlement agreement regarding those claims?
Opinions:
Majority - Sloss, J.
No, a surviving spouse is not required to elect between her community property interest and specific bequests in her deceased spouse's will, but rather is entitled to both, unless the will clearly and unambiguously manifests an intent to force such an election. Furthermore, Fannie Prager Cohn is precluded from contesting the widow's claim due to a fully executed settlement and compromise agreement. The court explained that the testator is presumed to have made his will with knowledge that his testamentary power does not extend to the surviving wife's one-half interest in community property. Thus, it is presumed he did not intend to devise or bequeath the one-half of community property that would vest in his widow regardless of his will. A widow's obligation to elect arises only if the will clearly manifests an intent to make the testamentary gift stand in lieu of her community property interest, either by express declaration or by language demonstrating that the testator's overall plan would be defeated if the widow took both her legal share and the testamentary gifts. In this case, the will did not declare the gifts to the widow were in lieu of her community right, nor did its provisions show an intention that would be frustrated by permitting the widow to take both. The will's scheme was consistent with the widow claiming her lawful interest in community property. Beyond the election doctrine, the court affirmed on the independent ground of a settlement agreement. Mary J. Prager, Fannie Prager Cohn, and other beneficiaries entered into a compromise agreement whereby Fannie Prager Cohn, in consideration of receiving a share of profit from an option and an assignment of another beneficiary's interest, agreed to waive her objection to the widow's claims. This fully executed agreement estopped Fannie Prager Cohn from subsequently challenging Mary J. Prager's right to both her community property share and the residue of the estate, and the trial court's findings of fact supporting this agreement were adequately supported by evidence.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies California's testamentary election doctrine concerning community property, establishing a strong presumption against forcing a surviving spouse to choose between her statutory community property interest and testamentary gifts. It places a high bar on testators, requiring clear and unambiguous language to compel an election, thereby protecting a surviving spouse's legal rights. The ruling also reinforces the enforceability and preclusive effect of fully executed settlement agreements, highlighting their role in resolving probate disputes and preventing relitigation of claims once compromised. This has a lasting impact by encouraging clear will drafting and emphasizing the finality of negotiated settlements in estate administration.
