## Facts

- Merland Jose Wolfe and Troi C. Wolfe married in 1935; divorce proceedings occurred from 1937 to 1943, but the parties reconciled and lived together until Merland’s death in 1952.
- During the divorce proceedings, the spouses executed two property-settlement agreements purporting to divide community property and address after-acquired property; after reconciliation they did not discuss the agreements.
- Merland later acquired and traced assets (including a ranch property in Northridge) from the garage business operated in his name.
- Merland’s will declared that all property in which he held an interest was his separate property and purported to dispose of the entire estate on that basis.
- The will provided benefits for Troi and placed the residue in trust for Troi and Merland’s sister, Leanore L. Wolfe, with the survivor to take the remainder in fee.
- In a probate heirship proceeding, Troi claimed both her statutory one-half share of community property and the benefits provided to her under the will.
- The trial court treated the prior settlement agreements as abrogated by reconciliation, characterized the disputed property as community property, and held Troi was not required to elect.
- Leanore appealed, arguing Troi could not both retain her community share and also take under a will that purported to dispose of the entire community estate as Merland’s separate property.

## Issues

1. Whether a surviving spouse must elect between statutory community property rights and benefits under a will when the will treats all property as the testator’s separate property and purports to dispose of the entire community estate, including the spouse’s half.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed.
- The court held Troi was required to make an election between taking under the will and asserting her community property rights.
- The court accepted that reconciliation abrogated the divorce-related property-settlement agreements, making the disputed assets community property at death.
- Even with community characterization, the will’s language and structure showed an intent to dispose of the entire property as Merland’s separate estate; Troi’s dual claims were inconsistent with that disposition.

## Legal Principles

- When a will purports to dispose of the whole of community property as the testator’s separate property and grants benefits to the surviving spouse, the spouse must elect between accepting the testamentary benefits and asserting community property rights.
- Election turns on the testator’s intent as expressed in the will and the overall testamentary scheme; a court will not construe the instrument in a way that effectively rewrites it to dispose of only the testator’s one-half community interest when the will indicates otherwise.
- A spouse cannot both affirm a will (by taking its benefits) and repudiate it (by asserting property rights inconsistent with its dispositive plan).
- Reconciliation may abrogate prior marital property-settlement agreements and restore community property status, but that restoration does not prevent election when the will attempts to control the spouse’s community interest.

## Conclusion

Because the will treated all property as Merland’s separate property and sought to dispose of the entire estate in a scheme benefiting Troi while also directing a remainder interest for Leanore, Troi could not simultaneously claim her one-half community share and take under the will; she was required to elect between those inconsistent positions.


Estate of Wolfe, 48 Cal. 2d 570, 311 P.2d 476 (Cal. 1957)