Chamberlin v. Wong
California Court of Appeal
1Dissent
ZIEBARTH, J.*
I respectfully dissent.
In reaching its conclusion that the decedent Muriel Eddy did not effectively exercise in her will the power of appointment given her by the will of her predeceased husband, the majority seems to be relying primarily on the provisions of Civil Code sections 1385.1, 1385.2 and section 1386.2, as amended.
I submit, however, that those statutory provisions are not determinative of the issues raised in this appeal. As will be shown hereinafter, the aforementioned statutory provisions have the effect of merely reinforcing the requirements imposed by Everett’s will…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Estate of CarterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- American Cancer Society v. Church Divinity SchoolCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Holzbach v. United Virginia BankSupreme Court of Virginia · 1975
- Childs v. GrossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.