In re Estate of Russell
69 Cal. 2d 200 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may consider extrinsic evidence of the circumstances under which a will was made to determine if its terms are ambiguous. However, such evidence is inadmissible to give the will a meaning to which its language is not reasonably susceptible; a void residuary bequest to an ineligible beneficiary, such as an animal, passes to the testator's heirs through intestacy.
Facts:
- On March 18, 1957, Thelma L. Russell created a holographic will written on a small card.
- The will stated, 'I leave everything I own Real & Personal to Chester H. Quinn & Roxy Russell.'
- A separate provision on the card bequeathed a gold coin and diamonds to her niece, Georgia Nan Russell Hembree.
- Chester H. Quinn was a close friend and companion of Thelma Russell.
- Georgia Nan Russell Hembree was Thelma Russell's only niece and sole heir-at-law.
- Roxy Russell was Thelma Russell's pet Airedale dog.
- The dog, Roxy Russell, died on June 9, 1958, after the will was executed but before Thelma Russell's death.
- Thelma L. Russell died on September 8, 1965.
Procedural Posture:
- After Thelma L. Russell's death, Chester H. Quinn petitioned for probate of her holographic will.
- Georgia Nan Russell Hembree, the decedent's niece, filed a petition in the probate court (a court of first instance) for determination of heirship, claiming the gift to the dog was void.
- The probate court held a hearing and, after admitting extrinsic evidence over Hembree's objections, entered a judgment for Chester H. Quinn, finding he was entitled to the entire residuary estate.
- Georgia Nan Russell Hembree (appellant) appealed the probate court's judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a court admit extrinsic evidence to interpret a will that leaves the residuary estate to 'Chester H. Quinn & Roxy Russell,' where Roxy Russell is a dog, as an outright gift of the entire residue to Quinn?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J.
No. While extrinsic evidence is admissible to determine if a will's language is ambiguous, it cannot be used to create a meaning to which the will's terms are not reasonably susceptible. The language 'to Chester H. Quinn & Roxy Russell' unambiguously denotes an intention to give the property to two beneficiaries in equal shares as tenants in common. This language is not reasonably susceptible to the interpretation that Quinn should receive the entire estate, with the mention of the dog being merely a 'precatory' wish for its care. Because a dog is not an eligible beneficiary under the law, the attempted gift of one-half of the residue to Roxy Russell is void. Under established California law, a failed or void portion of a residuary gift does not augment the share of the other residuary beneficiaries; instead, it passes by the laws of intestate succession to the testator's heir-at-law. Therefore, the void one-half share passes to Georgia Nan Russell Hembree.
Dissenting - McComb, J.
Yes. The trial court's judgment should be affirmed. The dissent adopted the reasoning of the intermediate Court of Appeal's unpublished opinion, which had upheld the trial court's finding that the testatrix intended to give the entire estate to Quinn and that the language concerning the dog was merely precatory.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark in California jurisprudence on will interpretation, clarifying the modern role of extrinsic evidence. It establishes a two-step process where courts first consider evidence of surrounding circumstances to assess if an ambiguity exists, but firmly limits its use by prohibiting interpretations that the will's text cannot reasonably support. The decision reinforces the 'plain meaning' rule's limitation on rewriting a will, even to avoid intestacy. It also highlights the traditional, though often criticized, 'no residue of a residue' rule, where a failed portion of a residuary gift passes via intestacy rather than to the surviving residuary beneficiaries, a rule later modified by many state legislatures.
