Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

In re Estate of Duke

352 P.3d 863 (2015)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 30,500+ case briefs...

In re Estate of Duke

Supreme Court of California

352 P.3d 863 (2015)

Play video

Facts

Irving Duke prepared a will in which he left all of his property to his wife, Beatrice. Irving’s will provided that if he and his wife died simultaneously, his property should be divided between two charities. Beatrice was appointed the executor of the estate. Beatrice died before Irving, but the will was not changed to select a new executor. When Irving died, he left no spouse or children. The two charities petitioned for probate. Robert and Seymour Radin (the Radins) were the sons of Irving’s sister, who predeceased Irving. The Radins filed a petition alleging that they were entitled to the distribution of Irving’s estate as Irving’s sole intestate heirs. The Radins asserted that the estate must pass to them because Irving did not predecease Beatrice, nor did Irving and Beatrice die simultaneously. Because there was no provision in the will for disposition of the estate in the event that Irving survived Beatrice, the Radins argued that Irving died intestate. The charities opposed the Radins’ motion and offered extrinsic evidence to prove that Irving intended to provide that in the event Beatrice was not alive to inherit Irving’s estate when Irving died, the estate would be distributed to the charities. The Radins argued that reformation of wills should never be permitted because (1) the testator is not available as a witness, (2) reformation overrides the formalities required to execute a will, and (3) allowing reformation will result in a significant increase in probate litigation. The probate court granted summary judgment for the Radins, holding that the will was not ambiguous and declining to consider extrinsic evidence of Irving’s intent. The charities appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Cantil-Sakauye, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 550,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 550,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 30,500 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 550,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 30,500 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership