Legal Opinion

Estate of Gardner

California Supreme Court

Decided July 3, 1978No. S.F. 23737PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

NEWMAN, J.

Beryl Gardner Lane appeals from a judgment awarding one-third of Maud Gardner’s estate to Edwin Gardner, who the trial court ruled was a pretermitted heir under Probate Code section 90. The issue is whether the general disinheritance clause in Maud’s will cuts off the rights of Edwin, who was not named. 1 Beryl is Maud’s daughter; Edwin is a grandson; his father (Maud’s son) predeceased Maud.

Maud’s will was executed in 1969, when Beryl was Maud’s only surviving child. Besides Edwin, two other grandchildren survived Maud. Edwin argues that he is entitled to a share of Maud’s…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of StevensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Torregano v. TorreganoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  3. In Re Estate of TrickettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Estate of PriceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  5. In re Estate of GarraudCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Matter of Estate of WoodwardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1991
  2. Estate of SzekelyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
  3. In Re Estate of HoigaardCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
  4. Meneguzzi v. LeonettiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
  5. Smith v. CrookCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API