## Facts

- Florence Sheldon executed a valid holographic will in 1972 leaving her estate (with limited conditional gifts) equally to her two children, Oscar Marion Huffman and Helen Peterson.
- The will did not mention any future spouse.
- Florence (age 80) married Al Sheldon (age 78) in January 1974 and died testate in September 1974.
- After Florence’s death, Al executed assignments of his asserted interest in the estate to Helen Peterson and her husband, Duane Peterson.
- In probate heirship proceedings, Marion alleged an oral premarital agreement between Florence and Al that neither would inherit from the other.
- An advisory jury found the oral premarital agreement existed and that Florence relied on it to her detriment by entering the marriage.
- The probate court concluded the agreement was enforceable and barred Al from taking any share; because Al had no interest, his assignments conveyed nothing.
- Helen and Duane Peterson appealed from the adverse heirship determination.

## Issues

1. Whether an oral premarital agreement waiving mutual inheritance rights can limit or defeat a surviving spouse’s statutory rights under California Probate Code §§ 70 (omitted spouse) and 220–221 (intestate share).
2. Whether equitable estoppel and full performance can prevent the surviving spouse (and assignees) from invoking the statute of frauds to avoid enforcement of the oral waiver.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the heirship judgment.
- Substantial evidence supported the finding that Florence and Al made an oral premarital agreement that neither would share in the other’s estate.
- The agreement barred Al from receiving an omitted-spouse share under Probate Code § 70.
- Even assuming § 70 would otherwise operate, Probate Code § 220 made any intestate succession rights “subject to” limitations created by a marriage or other contract; the waiver eliminated any share under § 221.
- Because Florence relied on the agreement and fully performed by marrying Al, Al (and his assignees) were estopped from asserting the statute of frauds against enforcement of the waiver.
- Al had no inheritable interest to assign; therefore, the Petersons took nothing by assignment beyond Helen’s share under the will.

## Legal Principles

- A premarital agreement in which spouses waive inheritance rights may defeat an omitted-spouse claim when the omission is consistent with the parties’ agreement rather than accidental.
- Intestate succession rights of a surviving spouse are limited by “any marriage or other contract” under Probate Code § 220, and such a contract may reduce the statutory spouse’s share under § 221 to zero.
- An otherwise writing-required marital agreement may be enforced in equity where reliance and full performance make it inequitable to permit the promisor (or assignee) to assert the statute of frauds.
- An assignee of a surviving spouse’s claimed estate interest acquires no greater rights than the spouse possessed; if the spouse is contractually barred from inheriting, the assignment conveys nothing.

## Conclusion

The court held that an enforceable oral premarital waiver, applied through estoppel based on reliance and full performance, prevented the surviving spouse and his assignees from claiming any statutory share of the decedent’s estate, leaving distribution under the will to the named children.


Estate of Sheldon, 75 Cal. App. 3d 364, 142 Cal. Rptr. 119 (Ct. App. 1977)