QUESTION ANALYSIS
In 2004, Mae, a widow, executed a valid will, (No validity issue) intentionally leaving out her daughter, Dot, (omitted child) and giving 50 per cent of her estate to her son, Sam, and 50 per cent to Church.
In 2008, after a serious disagreement with Sam, Mae announced that she was revoking her will, and then tore it in half in the presence of both Sam and Dot.(revocation by physical act with the intent to revoke evidenced by the serious disagreement)
In 2010, after repeated requests by Sam, (undue influence) Mae handwrite (holographic will) and signed (signature) a document declaring that she was thereby reviving her will. (revival of will and material provision) She attached all of the torn pages of the will to the document. (Incorporation by reference and integration) At the time she signed the document, she was entirely dependent on Sam for food and shelter and companionship, and had not been allowed by Sam to see or speak to anyone for months. (no witness but it is immaterial) By this time, Church had gone out of existence. (No anti-lapse because it is not kindred)
In 2011, Mae died. Her sole survivors are Dot and Sam.
What rights, if any, do Dot and Sam have in Mae’s estate?
Discuss.Answer according to California law.