Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Matter of the ESTATE of Alfred J. GUIDOTTI, also known as Alfred Guidotti, and as A. J. Guidotti, Deceased. Ann GUIDOTTI, Appellant, v. AMERICAN TRUST COMPANY, as Executor of the Estate of Alfred J. Guidotti, also known as Alfred Guidotti, and as A. J. Guidotti, Respondent.
Alfred and Ann Guidotti were married October 21, 1950. He died December 16, 1955, leaving a will dated March 24, 1954, and a codicil dated May 5, 1954. The will declares that all testator's property as of that date is his separate property, and leaves specified separate property and ‘any community property which we may acquire’ to his wife, with the residue to his three sisters. The executor petitioned for instructions as to the character of the property of the estate, alleging upon information and belief that all property listed in the inventory was separate property of decedent. The widow filed a petition alleging that specified items listed in the inventory were community property. The two petitions were heard together, and the court determined that all the questioned items were separate property. The widow appeals.
Appellant introduced no evidence. She relies upon the presumption that property acquired after marriage is community in character, unless shown to be separate (Meyer v. Kinzer, 12 Cal. 247). But this presumption may be rebutted (Simonton v. Los Angeles Trust & Sav. Bank, 205 Cal. 252, 270 P. 672). In the case at bar, there is evidence tracing all the property in this estate to that owned by decedent before his marriage. At most, appellant can claim a conflict of evidence. In such case, our function is merely to determine whether the finding of the trial court is sustained by substantial evidence (In re Estate of Trelut, 26 Cal.App.2d 717, 80 P.2d 147). There is also evidence that decedent's family expenses far exceeded the income which appellant claims to be community in character. In view of the presumption that family expenses are paid from community property (Huber v. Huber, 27 Cal.2d 784, 792, 167 P.2d 708), it follows that the claimed community earnings could not have resulted in any accumulation of community property (In re Estate of Ades, 81 Cal.App.2d 334, 184 P.2d 1). Thus the finding of the trial court is amply sustained.
Judgment affirmed.
DRAPER, Justice.
KAUFMAN, P. J., and DOOLING, J., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Civ. 17653.
Decided: December 09, 1957
Court: District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)