Estate of Kehler (488 Pa. 165 (1980) In case of gift to named members of a group (not a traditional class gift) court found that gift to testator’s predeceased brother was not intended to lapse. Court kicked in the anti-lapse statute and his share of gift went to his daughter.
Estate of Parsons (103 Cal.App.3d 384 (1980)) Case asked whether a subscribing witness who is named in a will as beneficiary becomes disinterested by filing a disclaimer after the testator’s death. Held that witness must be disinterested at time of execution. NOTE: Case applied majority rule which is no longer law in California.
Estate of Saueressig (38 Cal.4th 1045 (2006)) Probate Code section 6110(c), which requires that a will be signed by two witnesses, requires attestation prior to the testator's death.
Estate of Shannon (224 Cal.App.3d 1148 (1990)) Case involved omitted spouse. Court found that she should receive omitted spouse share. Court found general exclusionary clause not sufficient to rebut presumption to revoke will and give omitted spouse share.
In re Demaris’ Estate (110 P.2d 571 (1941)) Will executed in Doctor’s office. Testator signed will in bed in treatment room. Nurse who acted as witness was in consultation room in sight of testator, but Dr. was in consultation room out of sight of the testator. Held that under the line of sight test, the will was not properly attested to. Under conscious presence test will would have been valid. Could have avoided problem, by having both witnesses go to treatment room and witness the patient acknowledging his signature.
Janus v. Tarasewicz (135 Ill. App. 3d 936) Husband dies of contaminated Tylenol and wife dies two days later. Court found that treating physicians diagnoses of death w/ respect to H & W were made in accordance w/ “the usual and customary standards of medical practice.” Accordingly, W survived H and W’s estate took the life insurance benefits.
Simon v. Grayson (15 Cal.2d 531 (1940)) Case dealt with the construction and effect to be given a provision in the will incorporating a letter of reference. Issue revolved around existence of the letter being made after execution of the will. Held that codicil had republished the will and in effect the letter was in existence prior to the will’s execution.