Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara, Rodney S. Melville, Judge, Super. Ct. No. 1197046
John F. Hodges; Weldon & DeGasparis and Ernest W. DeGasparis for Petitioners and Appellants Linda Reiswig and Robert Sauser.
Jack L. Collison as Executor of the Estate of Serfie G. Silveira, in pro. per., for Objector and Respondent.
Kirk & Simas and Kathleen R. Crabtree for Objectors and Respondents Joseph Muscio and Cynthia Muscio.
GILBERT, P.J.
Linda Reiswig and her brother, Robert Sauser, appeal an order of the probate court admitting to probate and construing a holographic codicil written by their stepfather, Serfie G. Silveira. We independently interpret the holographic codicil and affirm as to Linda, but dismiss the appeal as to Robert.
To ease the reader's task and not from disrespect, we shall refer to the parties by their first names.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 12, 2005, Serfie died in the family home of his Drum Canyon Ranch in Lompoc where he had lived most of his life. Serfie's wife, Ada, had died nearly six years before, and the couple had no children. Linda and Robert are the adult children of Ada, and Serfie's stepchildren.
Prior to Ada's death, Serfie's testamentary plan provided for Ada, and then her children, in the event she predeceased him. On September 20, 2004, after Ada's death, Serfie revoked his prior wills and codicils, and executed a will prepared by his longtime attorney, Jack Collison. This will left Serfie's estate, including his Drum Canyon Ranch, to Joe and Cindy Muscio, his friends and tenants residing on the ranch. The will specifically disinherited Serfie's stepchildren, stating that Serfie made "provisions for them as beneficiaries of [his] life insurance policies." Collison's notes reflect that Serfie intended to bequeath his bank certificates of deposit to the Muscios.
Joe and Cindy had befriended Serfie prior to Ada's death. Following her death, Joe remodeled the ranch house and Serfie moved from a mobile home on the ranch into the ranch house. Joe, Cindy, and their two sons moved into the mobile home as tenants. Cindy, a nurse, assisted Serfie with meals, shopped for him, and cleaned the ranch house. Serfie was fond of the couple and their two sons. Joe described their relationship as a "father-son" relationship.
In 2004, Serfie's physician recommended that he receive surgery to remove vascular blockage in his carotid arteries. Despite encouragement from Linda and Cindy, Serfie declined treatment.
Approximately a week prior to his death, Serfie informed Linda that he had executed a will that disinherited her and her brother, except as beneficiaries of his two life insurance policies. Serfie added that he placed a metal box for her in his bureau drawer. Linda was surprised and hurt by Serfie's decision because she believed that they enjoyed a longstanding close relationship.
Several weeks prior to his death, Serfie informed Joe of the metal box for Linda, and of a manila envelope in a bureau drawer for him. Serfie requested Joe to ensure that Linda receive the metal box after his death.
On December 4, 2005, Serfie suffered a major stroke. He died at home a week later. Following Serfie's death, Joe and Linda obtained the metal box and manila envelope from Serfie's bureau drawers.
The metal box contained 17 envelopes with cash totaling $2,500, life insurance policies, and stale renewal notices (2000-2003) for bank certificates of deposit, among other papers. The metal box also contained an undated handwritten note stating: "Linda thanks for everything The money is yours I'd like you to give Denise 25 hundred for helping with your mom Thanks again Serf Don't tell Bob about this." Denise, Linda's niece, helped care for Ada during her final illness.
The manila envelope contained Serfie's health directive, and a note listing five bank certificates of deposit, by opening balance. The note stated: "Conseco Ins. GI Ins. -------------- Joe & Cynthia Muscio 3100 Drum Canyon Rd. Lompoc, Ca 93436 CDs 2 100 2 50 Washinton 85."
Collison filed a petition to probate Serfie's 2004 will. On March 21, 2006, the probate court admitted the will to probate and issued letters testamentary to Collison. Three months later, Linda and Robert filed a petition to revoke probate, contending that Serfie lacked testamentary capacity at the time he made the 2004 will, and was under the undue influence of the Muscios.
On October 6, 2006, Linda and Robert sought to amend the petition to revoke probate and to probate the handwritten note as a holographic codicil to the will. Linda asserted that the codicil made a testamentary gift to her of approximately $600,000 in bank certificate of deposits. She reasoned that Serfie meant the $2,500 cash to be given to Denise and the money evidenced by the certificates of deposit was for her.
At trial, Linda and Robert abandoned their theories of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. They testified regarding their longstanding affectionate relationship with Serfie. Other witnesses testified regarding his close relationship with the Muscios. Serfie's longtime friend testified that he stated that renting the mobile home to the Muscios "was the best thing he [had] ever done in his life."
Friends also testified that Serfie usually kept large amounts of cash on his ranch. One friend testified that Serfie would "stash money" and "had a considerable amount of money put away in case something like the depression . . . happened again and he would have money to fall back on."
The probate court admitted the handwritten note as a holographic codicil to the 2004 will. It then interpreted the testamentary gift to Linda of "money" ("The money is yours") not to include any bank certificates of deposit, but only the cash contained in the 17 envelopes and any cash found elsewhere on the ranch. In its ruling, the court explained that it accepted the testimony of Serfie's friends that he kept a large amount of cash in the ranch home or on the property.
Linda and Robert appeal and challenge the probate court's narrow interpretation of the codicil's bequest of "money."
DISCUSSION
I.
Respondents argue that Robert has no standing to appeal because the codicil does not make a gift to him. They are correct and we dismiss him as a party to this appeal.
II.
Linda argues that we should independently construe the codicil and interpret "[t]he money" as including the bank certificates of deposit referenced by the stale renewal notices. She relies upon judicial decisions broadly interpreting a bequest of "money" as "'"circulating medium of the country, whether in the personal possession of the testator or deposited in the bank."'" (Estate of Verdisson (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1139; Estate of Boyle (1934) 2 Cal.App.2d 234, 236.) Similarly, she asserts that courts have interpreted "cash" to include bank certificates of deposit. (Estate of O'Connell (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 526, 532 ["'all cash remaining in my savings and checking accounts'" interpreted to include bank certificates of deposit].) Linda points out that she may not receive a gift from the codicil unless "money" includes the bank certificates of deposit.
The paramount rule in the construction of a will requires that we construe the will to give effect to the intention of the testator. (Newman v. Wells Fargo Bank (1996) 14 Cal.4th 126, 134 [probate court must determine "what the testator meant by the language he used"]; Estate of Goyette (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 67, 70.) In this task, the court examines the will as a whole and the circumstances at the time of the will's execution. (Newman, at p. 134.) Otherwise unambiguous words may be ambiguous in the context of a particular will and the circumstances of its execution. (Ibid. ["child," "children," or "issue" may be ambiguous terms in context of a particular will].)
Upon review of the trial court's construction of a will, we independently interpret the instrument as a matter of law unless the trial court's interpretation depends upon the credibility of extrinsic evidence or resolution of conflicting evidence. (Estate of Goyette, supra, 123 Cal.App.4th 67, 71.) Every will involves singular facts, and precedent decisions generally are not helpful. (Id. at p. 70.)
Applying the rules for the construction and interpretation of wills, we agree with the trial court that Serfie meant the gift of "money" to Linda to mean the cash and currency that he kept in the metal box and elsewhere in his home or on the ranch. In our interpretation, we consider and find persuasive that Serfie's note was in the same box as $2,500 paper currency, and his friends testified that his practice was to keep substantial amounts of currency on the premises. We also consider that the manila envelope left for Joe stated his name and listed the bank certificates of deposit by opening balance. Serfie prepared and left the metal box and manila envelope shortly before his death, and notified Linda and Joe of their existence in the bureau drawers.
The precedent decisions upon which Linda relies are not helpful in view of the factual circumstances here. (Estate of Goyette, supra, 123 Cal.App.4th 67, 70.) The meaning of "money" in the abstract may seem unambiguous. Here its meaning is unclear, however, given the existence of the $2,500 currency, the stale renewal notices, other documents in the metal box, the note to Joe, and the testimony regarding Serfie's practice of keeping large amounts of money at the ranch. Our interpretation of the will gives effect to Serfie's intentions.
We dismiss the appeal as to Robert, but otherwise affirm. Respondents are to recover costs.
We concur: COFFEE, J. PERREN, J.