## Facts

- Sidney Israel Altman died leaving a handwritten (holographic) will.
- The will sought to provide for Altman’s dog, Samantha, by directing that Altman’s home and $350,000 be used for the dog’s care.
- Altman appointed his close friend, Marie Dana, to care for Samantha in exchange for living in the home and receiving a $60,000 tax-free salary.
- The will expressed Altman’s desire that his housekeeper, Rosa Parades, continue to be employed to maintain the home.
- The will appointed Clive Diamond as executor and gave him authority to oversee Dana’s care of Samantha, including authority to remove the dog if Samantha was not being adequately cared for.
- After Samantha’s death, the will directed that the home be sold and that remaining funds be distributed to two animal charities: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and Last Chance for Animals.
- Dana alleged that, before Altman’s death, Altman promised to take care of Dana for the rest of her life and, on that basis, Dana challenged the will and sought $2.7 million from the estate.
- PETA and Last Chance for Animals filed objections and petitioned the probate court for determinations regarding distributions under the will.

## Issues

1. Whether the estate should be distributed according to Altman’s holographic will, including the arrangement for Samantha’s care and the remainder gifts to PETA and Last Chance for Animals.
2. Whether Dana could obtain additional estate assets based on an alleged promise by Altman to support her for life that was not reflected in the holographic will.
3. How the probate court should resolve the charities’ objections and requests for distribution determinations in light of Dana’s competing claim.

## Decision

- The probate proceeding involved petitions and objections concerning the administration and distribution of Altman’s estate under a holographic will that provided (1) housing and salary to Dana in exchange for caring for Samantha under executor oversight and (2) remainder distributions to PETA and Last Chance for Animals after Samantha’s death.
- Dana asserted a competing claim for $2.7 million based on an alleged lifetime-support promise, and the charities objected and sought determinations affecting distribution.
- No reporter-published opinion or publicly accessible primary-source decision text was located for Case No. BP039093 (2000); as a result, the probate court’s final rulings and reasoning cannot be stated from the available public record summarized in secondary sources.

## Legal Principles

- Probate courts generally seek to carry out the testator’s intent as expressed in a valid will, including terms that condition a beneficiary’s receipt of benefits on performing specified duties.
- When a will provides an oversight role for an executor tied to a beneficiary’s ongoing performance (such as care of an animal), the executor may be called on to monitor performance and take steps authorized by the will if the conditions are not met.
- A claimant seeking distribution inconsistent with the will (such as based on an alleged lifetime-support promise) ordinarily must establish a recognized legal basis and prove the agreement or entitlement under applicable probate and contract rules, rather than relying on an assertion that contradicts the will’s stated plan.
- Where remainder beneficiaries (including charities) are named in a will, they may appear in the probate proceeding to object and request court determinations to protect their stated interests in the estate’s distribution.

## Conclusion

In re Estate of Sidney Altman, Case. No. BP039093 (2000), concerns a California Superior Court probate dispute arising from Sidney Israel Altman’s holographic will, which set up a home-and-salary arrangement for Marie Dana to care for Altman’s dog, Samantha, under executor Clive Diamond’s oversight, and directed that after Samantha’s death the home be sold and remaining funds distributed to PETA and Last Chance for Animals; Dana challenged the plan by asserting a separate $2.7 million claim based on an alleged promise of lifetime support, which the charities opposed through objections and petitions seeking distribution determinations.
