1
Under California law, a will or part of a will can be revoked by a subsequent testamentary instrument or by a physical act performed by the testator with revocatory intent. Physical acts include burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, or destroying the will or a portion thereof. Here, Tammy's act of crossing out the "$10,000" figure qualifies as a physical act of cancellation or obliteration, which effectively revoked the original $10,000 bequest.
The issue then becomes the effectiveness of the handwritten "$20,000" figure. While Tammy clearly intended to increase Natalie's gift, this handwritten interlineation does not meet the formal requirements for executing a valid will or codicil under California law. It lacks the necessary witness signatures (unless considered a valid holographic modification, which requires the material provisions to be in the testator's handwriting – here, only the amount, initials, and date are handwritten, likely insufficient). Therefore, the attempt to bequeath $20,000 is invalid.
The situation – where a testator revokes a gift intending to replace it with another that ultimately fails – triggers the doctrine of Dependent Relative Revocation (DRR). DRR operates under the presumption that the testator would prefer the original gift to stand rather than have the revocation take effect if the intended replacement fails. It applies when the revocation is conditional upon the validity of the new disposition. Here, it seems highly probable that Tammy crossed out the $10,000 only because she believed she was effectively substituting it with $20,000. Her intent was clearly to benefit Natalie, likely more generously. She would presumably not have wanted Natalie to receive nothing, which would be the result if the revocation stood alone. Because the attempted $20,000 gift is invalid, DRR allows the court to disregard the revocation (the crossing out) as being dependent on a mistaken belief (that the new amount was validly bequeathed). Consequently, the court will likely reinstate the original provision, and Natalie will receive the $10,000 initially specified in the validly executed will.
2
The primary goal in will interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the testator's intent. While the plain meaning of terms is a starting point, California law permits the consideration of extrinsic evidence to interpret a will's terms, even if they are not ambiguous on their face, to determine the testator's intent.
Here, the term "coin collection" presents a latent ambiguity when applied to the specific property Tammy owned and how she maintained it.
Several pieces of evidence suggest Tammy intended Frank to receive the medals. First, she stored the medals together with the coins in the same album. This physical integration suggests she viewed them as a single collection or unit for practical purposes, regardless of technical definitions. Second, and more significantly, the album contained a typewritten note signed by Tammy stating she wanted Frank "to take care of her album" after her death. While this note likely cannot be formally incorporated by reference into the will (as the will doesn't mention it and it may not have existed when the will was signed), it serves as powerful extrinsic evidence of Tammy's intent regarding the album's contents. Her specific reference to the "album" strongly implies she intended Frank to possess everything within it, which includes both the coins and the medals.
Although most collectors differentiate between coins and medals, Tammy's personal classification and intent, as evidenced by her storage practices and the separate signed note directed at Frank concerning the album, are paramount. The court will likely find that Tammy used the term "coin collection" loosely to refer to the entire contents of the album she curated. Therefore, prioritizing Tammy's specific intent demonstrated through extrinsic evidence, the court will likely rule that Frank inherits both the coins and the medals contained within the album.
3
California has adopted the doctrine of cy pres by statute, allowing a court to modify the terms of a charitable trust if its original purpose becomes impossible, impracticable, unlawful, or wasteful. For cy pres to apply, the court must find that the testator had a general charitable intent, broader than the specific purpose stated. If the intent was solely limited to the narrow purpose which has failed, the trust would fail, and the funds would pass to the testator's heirs or under the residuary clause (though here, this is the residuary clause).
Courts often presume a general charitable intent unless the will clearly indicates otherwise. Tammy dedicated her entire residuary estate to this trust, suggesting a significant commitment to a charitable cause related to RG syndrome and eyesight. While "finding a cure" is specific, it falls under the broader category of combating eye disease and promoting eye health. The absence of a gift-over provision (specifying what happens if the trust purpose fails) further supports the inference of a general charitable intent.
Here, the court must determine if NTC's proposed modification – funding ophthalmology scholarships – aligns with Tammy's general charitable intent and is "as near as possible" to the original purpose. Supporting education in ophthalmology directly relates to eye health and the prevention or treatment of eye diseases like RG syndrome, albeit through a different mechanism (education vs. research for a specific cure). It benefits the same field of medicine and ultimately aids those with vision impairment. This proposed purpose appears to be a suitable and analogous application of the funds within Tammy's likely general charitable intent to combat eye disease.
Therefore, the court is likely to find that Tammy possessed a general charitable intent related to eye health, that the original purpose is impossible, and that NTC's proposed modification is appropriate under the cy pres doctrine. The court will likely grant NTC's petition to change the trust's purpose to establishing ophthalmology scholarships.
(920 words)
