Modification: Estate of Stockird

Estate of CHERYL D. STOCKIRD, Deceased.

BRUCE RAMSDEN,

Contestant and Respondent,

v.

JOHN L. AGUIRRE, SR., Individually and as Administrator, etc.,

Claimant and Appellant.

No. A152538

(Contra Costa County

Super. Ct. No. MSP15-00183)

California Courts of Appeal

First Appellate District

Division One

Filed Jan. 11, 2019

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on December 19, 2018, be modified as follows:

1. On page 3, second sentence of the first full paragraph, replace the word "heirs" with "issue," so the sentence reads:

The court first determined that because Ambrose was not related by blood to Stockird, she was not "kindred" within the meaning of California's "antilapse" statute, section 21110, subdivision (c) (section 21110(c)),³ and accordingly, the 35 percent gift did not pass to Ambrose's issue under section 21110.

Footnote 3 in the sentence remains unchanged.

2. On page 4, second sentence of the first full paragraph, replace the word "heirs" with "issue," so the sentence reads:

First, Ambrose's issue are not entitled to her share under California's antilapse statute.

3. On page 7, in the second to last sentence on the page that begins "In other words," replace the word "heirs" with "issue," so the sentence reads:

In other words, if the antilapse statute applied, the lapsed residuary gift would pass to the residuary devisee's issue, but if the antilapse statute did not apply, the gift would pass to the other residuary devisees.

4. On page 8, footnote 7, replace the word "heirs" with "issue," replace "§ 2-606, pp. 591-592" with "§ 2-605, pp. 587-588," so the footnote reads:

⁷ Uniform Probate Code section 2-605, like section 21110, was the antilapse statute, which provided for disposition to a devisee's issue if a gift lapsed. (8 pt. I West's U. Laws Ann., supra, U. Prob. Code, § 2-605, pp. 587-588.)

5. On pages 8-9, in the carryover sentence that begins "As that comment makes clear," replace the word "heirs" with "issue," so the sentence reads:

As that comment makes clear, if a residuary gift lapses and the antilapse statute applies, the antilapse statute governs and the gift goes to the devisee's issue rather than the other residuary devisees.

There is no change in the judgment.

Dated:

Margulies, Acting P.J.