Estate of Hall
Appellants appeal from a judgment admitting to probate a holographic document executed by appellants’ father, in which father left his small restaurant and a five-year lease for the commercial space the restaurant occupied to a longtime employee and business associate, respondent Karen Whitman. Appellants claim the court erred in finding the holographic document was a valid will under California law. Specifically they complain: (1) that although father wrote his initials in the holographic document, his use of initials did not qualify as his “signature” as a matter of law; (2) the devise in the document was invalid because it was ambiguous and purports to give away an leasehold interest which father did not own at the time of his death; (3) Probate Code sections 21350 and 21351 disqualified respondent from receiving the interest conveyed in the will because she and Hall had a fiduciary relationship and she participated in drafting the will; and (4) because respondent retained custody and control over the will, father was prevented from revoking it. Court affirmed the judgment.
Comments on Estate of Hall