Estate of Thomas Wilson Hoyt (UPATED 1/22/24)

Case Number

22PR00270

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 01/24/2024 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Petition for Final Distribution

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required.  The following is noted for the Court at the hearing:

The proposed distribution is in conflict with distribution of the only will admitted to Probate.  This court only admitted the November 12, 2014 will to probate.  Thus, only that will controls the disposition of the property of this estate.

According to that will, tangible personal property was to be distributed according to a written instruction or the residue if no written instruction was left by the Decedent/Testator.  The residue was to be split 50/50 between Petitioner (brother of Decedent) and Antonia M. Hoyt (sister of Decedent); not 100% to Amanda Hoyt (niece of Decedent) as proposed in the petition.

There were two additional documents (other than the will admitted to Probate) proffered by the petitioner: 1) a holographic will and 2) “Instructions for the Distribution of My Personal Property” allegedly supplementing the November 12, 2014 will.  Neither were admitted to probate, as the court found them unreliable.

Decedent, Thomas Wilson Hoyt, died on December 12, 2021, in Santa Barbara, CA as stated in the Petition for Probate of Will and Letters Testamentary (Petition) filed on May 31, 2022. (Petition ¶3.a.) Petitioner also submitted to the court three original written instruments left by the decedent: an attested will (AW), a holographic will (HW), and a holographic subsequent writing (HSW). Copies of all three said written instruments were also attached to the petition.

According to the Petition, the only persons standing to benefit from the will were his siblings William C. Hoyt (also named executor of his estate), Antonia de La Guerra (referred to as Antonia M. Hoyt in AW), his niece Amanda Hoyt, and Rancho San Julian, LLC. (Petition ¶ 8.)

1. The Holographic Will is wholly revoked by the Attested Will (AW)

The first will executed in time is the AW. Here the AW creates slight confusion where the decedent’s signature contains no date. (AW pg. 8.) The AW does, however, have a cover sheet that states “Signed November 12, 2014” in what appears to be the decedent’s handwriting, thereby creating the presumption that the decedent signed on said date. (AW cover sheet.)

But in conflict with that date is the attestation clause, when the witnesses to the will say they witnessed Decedent sign it on November 20, 2014.  This is vital, because execution of the AW on November 20^th wholly revokes the holographic will by the express language in the AW; making the AW the controlling will.

The AW names Decedent’s brother (William C. Hoyt) as executor with full powers, and names his sister Antonia M. Hoyt as special executor.  The AW waives bond and gives the executor power to pay estate expenses and distribute his personal property according to his written instructions or to the residue of his estate if there are no written instructions. The AW also instructs the executor to distribute the remainder of his estate in equal shares to decedent’s brother/executor (William C. Hoyt) and his sister/special executor (Antonia M. Hoyt). (AW pg. 2)

In the HW, notarized November 17, 2014, the decedent names Clay Hoyt “my brother” as executor of his estate to distribute specific gifts to San Julian, friends, his ranch, and his “parts of his ranch” to his niece Amanda Hoyt. Because the date on the HW is only expressed as “November 2014,” it must be excluded from consideration pursuant to Probate Code section 6111(b)(1).  But even if that section did not preclude consideration, the jurat of the notary is dated three days before the November 20, 2014 date of execution of the AW.  This means that the HW is wholly revoked by the AW, because the language in the AW is express that it is “revoking all prior Wills and Codicils.” Thus, the HW is revoked by the AW and is not to be accorded any deference.

2. Holographic Subsequent Writing fails under Probate Code

Petitioner submitted a document entitled “Instructions for the distribution of my personal property.” The document is a fill-in-the-blank document, that is undated and unsigned, thus wholly unreliable. “Amanda” is handwritten under the section of beneficiary, and under the area of “item” is a handwritten disposition of Decedent’s ownership interests in his ranch LLCs. On its face, this document appears to show Decedent attempted to dispose of his certain interests in the ranch LLC properties to Amanda, who is documented in the petition as his niece. The issue here is that the writing is not dated or signed, thus could have been executed before the AW was executed on November 20, 2014, which would wholly revoke the writing. 

If the writing was a subsequent writing, it also fails under the Probate Code.

Prob. Code § 6132 (e)(1) states:

If the writing directing disposition of tangible personal property omits a statement as to the date of its execution, and if the omission results in doubt whether its provisions or the provisions of another writing inconsistent with it are controlling, then the writing omitting the statement is invalid to the extent of its inconsistency unless the time of its execution is established to be after the date of execution of the other writing.

Prob. Code § 6132 (h) (1) defines "Tangible personal property" as:

articles of personal or household use or ornament, including, but not limited to, furniture, furnishings, automobiles, boats, and jewelry, as well as precious metals in any tangible form, such as bullion or coins and articles held for investment purposes. The term "tangible personal property" does not mean real property, a mobile home as defined in Section 798.3 of the Civil Code, intangible property, such as evidences of indebtedness, bank accounts and other monetary deposits, documents of title, or securities.

Here, the writing fails for several reasons. Under Prob. Code § 6132 (e)(1) it fails because the decedent did not date nor execute the document with his signature. Under Prob. Code § 6132 (h) (1) it also fails because it lists either securities or interest in securities. Although unsure, either way the items are related to securities in an LLC and under 6132 (h) (1) a decedent cannot dispose of real property or securities via a subsequent outside writing. The document further fails because it has no date and creates an inconsistency in distribution by giving the ranch interests to a completely different devisee, which section 6132(e)(1) requires this court to hold invalid unless the time of execution can be established to be after the AW was executed…which it appears to be impossible to do without a date of execution.

Therefore, the subsequent writing outside the will fails, and the court should reject any disposition following that document.

As a result of the above analysis, the Court should distribute all property in the estate 50% to Petitioner, and 50% to Antonia M. Hoyt, according to clause 3C of the Attested will, executed on November 20, 20214.