From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
Estate of Taff
California Court of Appeal
63 Cal. App. 3d 319 (1976)
Facts
Pearl Taff verbally instructed her attorney to draft a will giving specific gifts to her late husband’s two sisters but not to anyone else in her late husband’s family. Further, Taff wanted the residue of her estate, i.e., the property left after all the specific gifts had been distributed, to go to her sister, Margaret Aulman. However, if Aulman died before Taff, Taff wanted her residuary estate to go to her own blood relatives. After this meeting, Taff wrote Aulman and told her that Taff was leaving her residuary estate to Aulman and Aulman’s heirs. However, Taff’s attorney drafted the will to read that if Aulman died first, Taff’s residuary estate would go to “my heirs,” and Taff signed it. On its face, this language gave Taff’s residuary estate to all her possible heirs, including her late husband’s sisters, nieces, nephews, and grandchildren (the legal heirs) (plaintiffs). Aulman died before Taff. When Taff died, the legal heirs made a claim to her residuary estate. Relatives who were related to Taff by blood (blood heirs) (defendants) contested the claim, presenting testimony from Taff’s attorney and the letter to Aulman to show that the reference in Taff’s residuary clause to “my heirs” meant only Taff’s blood heirs. The trial court found that the residue of Taff’s estate went to only the blood heirs. The legal heirs appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Franson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 602,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
