California Codes

Cal. Probate Code § 21120 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The words of an instrument are to receive an interpretation that will give every expression some effect, rather than one that will render any of the expressions inoperative. Preference is to be given to an interpretation of an instrument that will prevent intestacy or failure of a transfer, rather than one that will result in an intestacy or failure of a transfer.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Ramos v. Harkey, 123 Cal. App. 4th 67 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ramos v. Harkey, 123 Cal. App. 4th 67 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). “To this end, Probate Code section 21120 provides, “The words of an instrument are to receive an interpretation that will give every expression some effect, rather than one that will render any of the expressions inoperative.”

Est. of Barbour CA1/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “” (Prob. Code, § 21120.) 18 “Provisions in a testamentary instrument are to be given a liberal and reasonable interpretation rather than a narrow and technical one, with a view to discovering the decedent’s testamentary intent, and the apparent meaning of particular words,…”

Freuler v. Freuler CA6 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “” (Prob. Code, § 21120.)4 “All parts of an instrument are to be construed in relation to each other and so as, if possible, to form a consistent whole.”

Wilkin v. Nelson (Cal. Ct. App. 2020). “) It is true that “[p]reference is to be given to an interpretation of an instrument that will prevent intestacy” (Prob. Code, § 21120), but “no policy underlying the statute of wills supports a rule that would ignore the testator’s intent and unjustly enrich those who would…”

Cockren v. Brown CA5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). “(Prob. Code, § 21120.) This rule applies to partial as well as total intestacies, and the fact that an instrument was made at all raises a presumption that the 23.”

Gaynor v. Jones CA4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). “” (Prob. Code, § 21120.) “All parts of an instrument are to be construed in relation to each other and so as, if possible, to form a consistent whole.”

Elijah & Mary Stiny Trusts v. Helen Robins (8th Cir. 2026). “” Cal. Prob. Code § 21120 . California appellate courts review the interpretation of a trust de novo.”

Dunbar v. Dunbar CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026). “” (Prob. Code, § 21120.) “All parts of an instrument are to be construed in relation to each other and so as, if possible, to form a consistent whole.”

Henry v. Wise CA4/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). “(Prob. Code, § 21120.) Finally, our interpretation is consistent with Carolyn’s testimony that she understood at the time the Wise Trust was created that Pick Place would be placed in Trust B.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.