Language Intentionally Omitting Heirs Does Not Override Anti-Lapse Statute.
, 104 Cal. Rptr. 3d 924 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010): The testators’ will gave her residuary estate to her daughter and expressly stated her intention to leave nothing to any of her heirs “living at the time of my demise.” The testator’s daughter predeceased the testator. The daughter’s son and three of her grandchildren (children of the son’s predeceased sisters) survived the testator.
Presented with a petition for distribution, the trial court held that the daughter’s descendants, although they were stipulated to be testator’s heirs, took the residuary estate because the language in the will disinheriting “heirs” did not override the anti-lapse statute. The intermediate appellate court affirmed in In re Estate of Tolman, 104 Cal. Rptr. 3d 924 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).