In 1984, Irving Duke was 72 years of age when he prepared a holographic will.
He left all of his property to his wife Beatrice Schecter Duke, who was then 58 years of age. He left to his brother Harry Duke the sum of one dollar. He provided that should his wife and he die at the same moment, his estate was to be equally divided between the City of Hope and the Jewish National Fund.
The will appointed Beatrice the executrix of the estate. The only change Irving ever made to his will was the addition, in 1997, of the statement that all of their assets are community property. Beatrice died in July 2002, but the will was not changed to select a new executor.
Irving died in November 2007, leaving no spouse or children. In February 2008, a deputy public administrator for the County of Los Angeles obtained the will from Irving’s safe deposit box. In March 2008, two charities, the City of Hope and the Jewish National Fund, petitioned for probate and for letters of administration. In October 2008, Robert and Seymour Radin filed a petition for determination of entitlement to estate distribution alleging that they are entitled to the distribution of Irving’s estate as Irving’s sole intestate heirs.
The Radins moved for summary judgment. They asserted that the estate must pass to Irving’s closest surviving intestate heirs because Irving did not predecease Beatrice, nor did Irving and Beatrice die at the same moment, and there is no provision in the will for disposition of the estate in the event Irving survived Beatrice. In opposition to the motion, the charities offered extrinsic evidence to prove that Irving intended the will 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 probate court concluded that the will was not ambiguous, and on that ground it declined to consider extrinsic evidence of Irving’s intent and granted summary judgment for the Radins.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, based on Estate of Barnes. The Court of Appeal noted that the will in this case is similar to the will in Barnes. It found the will sufficiently similar to compel the conclusion that it does not reflect a dominant dispositive plan to leave the estate to the charities. It rejected the admission of extrinsic evidence because the evidence did not address any ambiguity in the will. The Supreme Court of California granted review.
View case