The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, has affirmed a probate court ruling in favor of GMSR’s clients in a contest over interpretation of a hand-written will.
The testator was not a lawyer and wrote his will informally. He sometimes drew arrows to connect beneficiaries to particular gifts, or named additional beneficiaries in the margin. As to the three commercial properties at issue in this case, he numbered them (1), (2) and (3) down the page but named his intended beneficiaries after property (1). The appellants asserted that properties (2) and (3), potentially worth millions of dollars, were left to no one and therefore belonged to them as beneficiaries of the residual estate. Representing the specifically named beneficiaries, GMSR persuaded the court that, in context, it was clear the testator intended to award all three properties to the named beneficiaries—there was no reason for him to list the properties at all if he had intended them to go to his residual estate.
Click here to read the Court of Appeal opinion: Estate of Marks (Oct. 1, 2021, B303281) 2021 WL 4487721 [Second District, Division 1] [nonpublished]
© 2025 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90048
p: (310) 859 7811 | f: (310) 276 5261
50 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
p: (415) 315 1774
© 2025 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
We welcome your inquiry. However, sending us an email does not create an attorney-client relationship. For that reason, you should not send us any kind of confidential information. Until we have agreed to represent you, we cannot be obligated to keep it confidential.