In the unpublished opinion of In Re Estate of Wallace, the First District Court of Appeal grappled with whether the trial court was correct in appointing a wife executor over her husband's will when their prenup agreement contained a written waiver in paragraph No. 16 of the premarital agreement that provides: "WAIVER OF RIGHTS ON DEATH OF OTHER PARTY: Each party hereby waives the right to receive any property or rights whatsoever on the death of the other, unless such right is created or affirmed by the other under a will or other written document executed after the date of the parties' marriage." However, on the same date that the husband signed the prenuptial agreement, he signed a will that nominated his spouse to be Mary as executor and Steve Nagel as alternate or successor executor and bequeathing his estate to Mary and his children in equal shares.
Because this will was signed "before the marriage and the husband did not execute a subsequent will after the marriage when he died, the court had to determine whether or not the wife had waived her right to claim under the will and to be its executor. The court relied on Estate of Hammer (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1621, 1634, and reasoned that a testator's selection of an executor should not be annulled except on a clear showing that the best interests of the estate require it, and found that the daughter Jennifer had "not made any showing, let alone a clear showing, that [Richard's] unambiguous intent should be disregarded or that the interests of the estate require a different executor." The appellate court affirmed finding Appellant has not shown or explained why those findings were not supported by substantial evidence or why the trial court's ruling was an abuse of its discretion.
Read prenups and wills carefully and ask questions if you believe something is ambiguous.
