## Facts

- A decedent executed a will leaving the entire estate to his daughter.
- The will included broad language purporting to disinherit unspecified heirs and/or deter contests.
- Years after executing the will, the decedent married a surviving spouse and did not execute a new will.
- After the decedent’s death, the premarital will was admitted to probate.
- The surviving spouse petitioned to take a statutory share as a pretermitted spouse (omitted spouse under a premarital will).
- The probate court denied the petition, and the surviving spouse appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a general disinheritance or forfeiture-type clause in a premarital will shows a testator’s intent to omit a later-married spouse, defeating a pretermitted spouse claim.
2. Whether the surviving spouse was entitled to a statutory share as a pretermitted spouse when the will did not specifically mention a future spouse.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the order denying the surviving spouse’s petition.
- The court held the surviving spouse qualified as a pretermitted spouse and was entitled to the statutory share.
- The court concluded the will’s broad, non-specific disinheritance language did not clearly establish intentional omission of a later-acquired spouse.

## Legal Principles

- A spouse who marries the testator after execution of the will and is omitted is presumptively entitled to a statutory share under California’s pretermitted spouse protections, unless an exception applies.
- The “intentional omission” exception requires a sufficiently clear indication that the testator meant to exclude the later spouse.
- Boilerplate, general disinheritance or no-contest-style language aimed at unnamed persons is ordinarily insufficient, by itself, to show intent to omit a future spouse not yet in existence at execution.
- Probate instruments are construed to carry out statutory protections for omitted spouses unless the testamentary document clearly defeats the statutory presumption.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that a premarital will’s generalized disinheritance language did not clearly evidence an intent to exclude a later-married spouse, so the surviving spouse took a statutory share as a pretermitted spouse.


In re Estate of Shannon, 224 Cal. App. 3d 1148, 274 Cal. Rptr. 338 (Ct. App. 1990)