residue rule in California

2019(Stats. 2002, ch. 138, § 20, p. 723.) As the Law Revision Commission comments to the 2002 amendment state: “Section 21111 is amended to clarify the treatment of a failed residuary gift. [¶] . . . [¶] With respect to a residuary devise, subdivision (b) abolishes the ‘no residue of a residue’ rule, illustrated by Estate of Murphy [(1910)] 157 Cal. 63 .

2018(Stats. 2002, ch. 138, § 20, p. 723.) As the Law Revision Commission comments to the 2002 amendment state: " Section 21111 is amended to clarify the treatment of a failed residuary gift. [¶] ... [¶] With respect to a residuary devise, subdivision (b) abolishes the 'no residue of a residue' rule, illustrated by Estate of Murphy [ (1910) ] 157 Cal. 63 [ 106 P. 230 ].

2019Code, supra, foll. § 21111, p. 83; Catch v. Phillips (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 648, 654 [“ ‘Explanatory comments by a law revision commission are persuasive evidence of the intent of the Legislature in subsequently enacting its recommendations into law.’ ”].) 6 As the Law Revision Commission comments allude, the “ ‘no residue of a residue’ rule” was the common law rule previously applicable in California, which provided: “That portion of any residuary estate that is the subject of a lapsed gift to one of the residuary beneficiaries remains undisposed of by the will and passes to the heirs-at-law.”

2019Code, supra, foll. § 21111, p. 83; Catch v. Phillips (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 648, 654 [“ ‘Explanatory comments by a law revision commission are persuasive evidence of the intent of the Legislature in subsequently enacting its recommendations into law.’ ”].) 6 As the Law Revision Commission comments allude, the “ ‘no residue of a residue’ rule” was the common law rule previously applicable in California, which provided: “That portion of any residuary estate that is the subject of a lapsed gift to one of the residuary beneficiaries remains undisposed of by the will and passes to the heirs-at-law.”

2018Code, supra , foll. § 21111, p. 83; Catch v. Phillips (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 648 , 654, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 584 [" 'Explanatory comments by a law revision commission are persuasive evidence of the intent of the Legislature in subsequently enacting its recommendations into law.' "].) As the Law Revision Commission comments allude, the " 'no residue of a residue' rule" was the common law rule previously applicable in California, which provided: "That portion of any residuary estate that is the subject of a lapsed gift to one of the residuary beneficiaries remains undisposed of by the will and passes t

1960The general rule is that a person is not entitled to be subrogated to the rights of a creditor until the claim of the creditor has been paid. (50 Am.Jur., p. 701, § 28.) “ [TJhere can be no interference with the creditor’s rights or securities which might, even by bare possibility, prejudice him in the collection of the residue of his claim, since a right of subrogation is against the debtor rather than against the creditor.” (83 C.J.S., p. 608.) In Broome v. Kern Valley Packing Co., 6 Cal.App.2d 256 [ 44 P.2d 430 ], in construing section 1714% of the Civil Code (the predecessor to section 402

1960The general rule is that a person is not entitled to be subrogated to the rights of a creditor until the claim of the creditor has been paid. (50 Am.Jur., p. 701, § 28.) “ [TJhere can be no interference with the creditor’s rights or securities which might, even by bare possibility, prejudice him in the collection of the residue of his claim, since a right of subrogation is against the debtor rather than against the creditor.” (83 C.J.S., p. 608.) In Broome v. Kern Valley Packing Co., 6 Cal.App.2d 256 [ 44 P.2d 430 ], in construing section 1714% of the Civil Code (the predecessor to section 402