Law of Wills, 2016A

Helen’s petition came on for a nonjury trial on January 12, 1984. Following the conclusion of the
trial, the court rendered its statement of decision, on February 1, 1984, in which it concluded that
Helen had a legal right to succeed to Charles’s entire estate as his surviving spouse under Probate
Code section 201. The court also concluded that Helen was Charles’ good faith putative spouse and
that it would be inequitable to deny her Charles’ entire estate.
On February 27, 1984, the court made and entered its judgment determining entitlement to estate
distribution and order for family allowance, in accordance with its statement of decision. Appellants
and Kimberly Hafner filed timely notices of appeal from that judgment.
Contentions
Appellants contend that (1) the trial court erred in awarding the entire estate to the putative spouse,
Helen, in the absence of an estoppel against the wife, Joan, and Charles’ children; (2) the trial court
improperly applied equities so as to disinherit the wife and children of the decedent in favor of his
putative spouse; and (3) the trial court’s decision as to the family allowance was erroneous as a
matter of law, and was not supported by the evidence.
Discussion
The Findings
The trial court’s statement of decision set forth certain findings upon which its decision and the
judgment were based. Among these findings are:
1. Joan and Charles were legally married on June 12, 1954; neither Joan nor Charles ever obtained
divorce, annulment, or other dissolution of their marriage; Joan never knew of Charles’ marriage to
Helen until his death; and three daughters were born of their marriage.
2. Helen and Charles participated in a marriage ceremony in Tijuana, Mexico, in 1962, and another
marriage ceremony in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 14, 1963; at all times to and including Charles’
death Helen believed in good faith that her marriage with Charles was valid and that Charles had
previously obtained a valid divorce from his wife; at all times on and after October 14, 1963, Helen
was a good faith putative spouse of Charles; the marriage of Helen and Charles was invalid [void] in
that the prior marriage of Joan and Charles was an existing marriage; Charles and Helen had one
child.
3. The entire estate of Charles consists of the remainder of the proceeds of Charles’ personal injury
settlement.
4. Joan is not estopped by any act or omission on her part to assert the invalidity of the [void]
marriage of Charles and Helen. (Italics in statement of decision.)
5. Joan, by reason of privity with Charles, would be estopped to challenge the validity of Charles’s
marriage to Helen because of Charles’s misrepresentation to Helen regarding his divorce from Joan.
The three daughters of Joan and Charles, Catherine, Lillian, and Dorothy would be estopped for the
same reason.
81