1. Natalie’s gift
Tammy’s original will is expressly valid, so the starting gift is $10,000. Crossing that amount out with revocatory intent can partially revoke the provision under Probate Code section 6120. Writing a larger number is not automatically an effective replacement: a codicil must satisfy an applicable execution rule.
The change was not newly attested. For a holographic codicil, the signature and material provisions must be in Tammy’s handwriting. Initials may function as a signature if intended to authenticate the disposition, but the only handwritten dispositive term is the amount. Natalie’s identity and the actual gift remain typed. That creates a substantial argument that the material provisions requirement is unsatisfied. Natalie can respond that the handwritten alteration, placed directly over the existing amount and authenticated by date and initials, sufficiently expresses a testamentary amendment when read in context. The answer should identify this dispute rather than assume that every initialed interlineation works.
California’s clear-and-convincing-evidence execution-saving provision also deserves consideration if its statutory conditions are met. It addresses a writing intended as a will despite failure of the witness requirement; proof of intent matters. The signed alteration strongly supports intent to increase the gift, although it does not erase every question concerning an adequately executed dispositive writing.
If the $20,000 amendment is ineffective, dependent relative revocation supplies the strongest fallback. The crossing-out was plainly connected to an attempted increase, suggesting that Tammy would prefer Natalie to receive the old $10,000 rather than nothing. The court can disregard the revocation induced by the mistaken belief that the substitute worked. Thus, $10,000 is a strong minimum result through that doctrine; $20,000 requires a finding that the amendment itself can be given effect. A zero recovery poorly matches the evident replacement plan.
2. Frank and the medals
The will gives Frank the coin collection, and most collectors distinguish medals from coins. That ordinary usage supports excluding the medals. However, testamentary intent governs interpretation, and the fact that Tammy kept both in one album creates a possible latent ambiguity about what she meant by her collection.
The signed note asking Frank to care for the album after her death is relevant evidence of her intended treatment of that particular group of objects. It is less clear as an independently effective bequest: it is typed, lacks stated witnesses, and uses care-taking language rather than an unequivocal ownership transfer. The facts also do not establish a will provision incorporating this separate writing or referring to a qualifying tangible-personal-property memorandum. Mere physical proximity does not automatically integrate a later note into an already executed will.
Frank therefore has a plausible interpretation argument, but not an automatic separate-document gift. On the ordinary meaning and the equivocal wording, the better cautious conclusion is that the medals remain outside the specific bequest unless the court finds sufficient evidence that Tammy used “coin collection” to mean the entire album. They would then pass under the applicable residue rather than disappear from the estate.
3. NTC’s proposed scholarship
The medical-research purpose is charitable. Finding a complete, inexpensive cure after Tammy’s death does not make the original trust invalid from inception; it makes the specified ongoing objective fulfilled or impracticable as a useful application of the remaining funds.
Cy pres permits a court to redirect charitable property consistently with a sufficiently general charitable intention. Ophthalmology scholarships share an eye-health connection, and no express gift over is stated. Those facts support preserving the gift for charity. But a scholarship is not identical to developing a cure. Research into another sight-threatening disease may be closer to the original objective than general professional education.
The court should therefore consider cy pres rather than automatically return the residue, while requiring NTC to show why this scholarship most nearly carries out Tammy’s purpose. Approval is plausible but not inevitable. If the evidence establishes an exclusively narrow intention tied to RG syndrome, or identifies a materially closer use, this particular petition may be denied or modified.