John D. Works

This case involved an appeal from probate court orders admitting to probate a will written on both sides of a single sheet of paper and denying distribution of the estate to the decedent's surviving son. One side of the document left all of the decedent's property to Ignazio Pontrelli, while the reverse side contained Pontrelli's agreement to deposit $1,000 in a bank for the son to receive at age 21; both sides were signed by the decedent and the same two witnesses. The court affirmed the orders, holding that the two sides together constituted the decedent's will and that the reference to the payment satisfied the statutory requirement of showing an intentional omission of the son from direct provision in the will under former Civil Code section 1307.

family lawproperty

This case involved a dispute over the validity of an alleged marriage between the parties based on a written contract containing a secrecy clause, with the appeal challenging the denial of a new trial and questioning whether the trial court's findings on the marriage issues were supported by evidence. The court addressed preliminary procedural objections regarding the authentication and completeness of the statement on motion for new trial, including the placement of exhibits in an appendix after the judge's certificate, and determined that the record was properly before it. On the merits, the court reasoned that the secrecy stipulation applied only to the contract's existence and did not inherently prevent the assumption of marital rights and duties, but found that the parties' actual concealment of their relationship meant no valid marriage had been consummated under the law. The court reversed the order denying a new trial and remanded the case.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between a contractor and property owners over payment for the construction of a cement sidewalk under a special contract, with the contractor also seeking recovery on a quantum meruit basis for work performed. The defendants admitted the contract but alleged the work was done in an unworkmanlike manner, sought to recover their partial payment via cross-complaint, and argued the contract was entire and uncompleted. The trial court found substantial performance on one side of the street, defects costing $58 to repair on the other side, and that the defendants had knowledge of the issues, made partial payment, and used the sidewalk, leading to a judgment for the plaintiff minus the repair cost. On appeal, the court affirmed, reasoning that the defendants were estopped from denying full payment due to their conduct, that quantum meruit recovery was appropriate where rescission was impossible, and that deducting repair costs adequately compensated them.

business & regulatory