California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Tassi v. Tassi, 160 Cal.App.2d 680, 325 P.2d 872 (Cal. App. 1958):
'Respondents further argue that the will and the policies must be construed together to put appellant to an election. No authority is cited to support this argument and we have found none. The case is not similar to Mazman v. Brown, 12 Cal.App.2d 272, 55 P.2d 539, where the widow was made a beneficiary of the policy itself and was held by virtue of that fact to be put to her election to take under the policy or to claim her community interest and renounce her rights as beneficiary. Appellant is not here claiming any property disposed of, or even referred to, in the will, and her claim is not inconsistent with any of the will's provisions. If she is put to an election here then every widow to whom a husband left any separater property by will, where he also left a life insurance policy paid for in whole or in part with community founds with someone other than the wife named as beneficiary, would be put to a similar election.'
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.