Flournoy v. Zeller

17 Cal. App. 3d 401, 94 Cal. Rptr. 648, 1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1488
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedMay 7, 1971
DocketCiv. No. 12598
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 Cal. App. 3d 401 (Flournoy v. Zeller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Flournoy v. Zeller, 17 Cal. App. 3d 401, 94 Cal. Rptr. 648, 1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1488 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971).

Opinion

Opinion

FRIEDMAN, J.

The will of Ethel C. Allen contained two separate bequests to Scottish Rite Bodies, Stockton, California. One bequest, consisting of a third of the estate’s residue, was accompanied by a request that the money be used to pay off the debt against the Temple building; the other, also one-third of the residue, was accompanied by a request that it be used for improving and maintaining the restaurant and food facilities in the Temple building, any remaining sum to be used for the improvement of Masonic degree work. The inheritance tax appraiser filed a report assessing an inheritance tax against these bequests. The executor filed an objection and now appeals from a probate court order overruling the objection and sustaining the tax.

Pivot of the appeal is the claim that Scottish Rite Bodies, Stockton, [405]*405California, is entitled to the exemption conferred upon charitable legatees by a provision of the inheritance tax law, section 13842, Revenue and Taxation Code.1 The statute limits the exemption to transferees organized and operated “exclusively” or “solely” for religious, charitable, scientific, literary or educational purposes. The probate court made findings of fact, declaring that although the legatee performed many charitable functions, the bequests were not “exclusively” for the purposes described in the statute.

Opposing the exemption, the State Controller has filed a brief declaring that the evidence “was not without conflict,” thus that this court is bound by the probate court’s findings. Contrary to the rules on appeal, the Controller does not support this statement by appropriate references to the record.2 Actually, the facts are undisputed. Hence appellate inquiry into the availability of the charitable exemption is a matter of law, unrestricted by the probate court’s findings. (Estate of Fleming, 31 Cal.2d 514, 522-523 [190 P.2d 611].)

At the hearing in the probate court a number of documents were introduced in evidence and testimony was taken from a single witness who had long experience in Masonry and had held various offices both in the Grand Lodge of California and in the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. We summarize the testimony:

The Supreme Council is the governing body for all Scottish Rite organizations within 35 states. Subordinate to it is the statewide California organization, called an “Orient,” which supervises the activities of 17 California “Valleys,” including the legatee, Scottish Rite Bodies, Stockton, California. The legatee is an unincorporated association. Embraced within it are four separate organizations: the Lodge of Perfection, the Chapter of Rose Croix, the Council of Kadosh and the Consistory. The legatee has a [406]*406membership of 2,800 persons, all of whom gained eligibility by qualifying for the first three degrees of Masonry. The organizations within the Stockton Bodies confer degrees from the 4th through the 32d. Qualification for the degrees is an educational process, teaching the Mason the duty of obedience to law, the virtues of industry and honesty, the principles of justice, the importance of religion, patriotism and ethical behavior. Conferral of these degrees is accompanied by a ritual. To be eligible for a degree, the applicant must believe in God. Each member is encouraged to possess religious beliefs and to lead a religiously directed life. At any meeting of the Scottish Rite held in Stockton a Bible must be on the altar.

The governing rules of the order require that the legatee, Stockton Scottish Rite Bodies, be nonprofit, charitable and educational. Its Temple building is used for meetings, for the performance of ceremonials and lectures, training and education of members in the knowledge requisite for advancement through the degrees and for social gatherings. The building contains offices, a banquet room, kitchen, lobby, club rooms, library and a lodge room. The “restaurant” mentioned in the will is not a restaurant in the usual sense, but rather consists of dining and kitchen facilities used for social events attended by members and their wives.

The Stockton Scottish Rite Bodies receives funds from dues, from charitable appeals and from charitable collections at meetings. It distributes money for charitable and educational purposes through several media. One medium is the Supreme Council in Washington, D.C., which receives a portion of the Stockton Bodies’ revenue. The Supreme Council provides funds for educational programs and publications promoting patriotism and allegiance to American political concepts. It distributes money to a variety of welfare and educational agencies such as boys’ clubs, colleges, libraries, hospitals and medical research agencies. Another medium for the dispensation of charity is a local Masonic official called the Almoner. The Almoner’s function is the selection and support of charities, including direct disbursement to needy people. When the receipts of charitable appeals among the members do not meet the charitable needs of the Almoner, the legatee provides supplemental money from its treasury.

A third medium for charitable dispensation is the Scottish Rite Foundation, a statewide organization of the various California Valleys, including the legatee. The Foundation allocates an annual sum among three charitable programs, one medical and two educational. The cost of the Foundation activity is prorated among the California Valleys in proportion to membership.

The witness testified—without contradiction but in conclusionary terms [407]*407—that the functions of the Masonic order are “solely and only, and exclusively educational, charitable and religious,” stating in effect that fulfillment of the fellowship and social needs of its members was no more significant than that which a church provides its members.

In support of the exemption, the executor cites numerous cases, mostly from other states, recognizing individual Masonic lodges as charitable. There are contrary cases. Decades of decisions involving Masonic organizations have conferred or withheld charitable status for various purposes of the law, among them exemption from ad valorem property taxation and from succession taxes. (See Estate of Wirt, 207 Cal. 106 [277 P. 118]; Estate of Wirt, 124 Cal.App. 7 [12 P.2d 95]; Kauffman v. Foster, 3 Cal.App. 741 [86 P. 1108]; Notes, 22 A.L.R. 907, 83 A.L.R. 773, 174 A.L.R. 531, 69 A.L.R.2d 864; 84 C.J.S., Taxation, § 295; 85 C.J.S., Taxation, § 1161.) These cases supply analytical guidance but have meager precedential value.3 Speaking generally of bequests to local Masonic lodges, the California Supreme Court has pointed out: “. . . the question as to whether or not certain lodges which are independent as to the detail of their local organization, but which in a general way belong to one branch of a widespread order of Masonry, are or are not charitable as to the main objects and purposes of their organization and conduct ... is a question as to which this court cannot, as matter of law, assume to take judicial notice, but which are essentially matters of fact to be made the subject of judicial inquiry and of the proffer of appropriate proofs before the trial court.” (Estate of Wirt, supra, 207 Cal. at p. 111.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Estate of Allen
17 Cal. App. 3d 401 (California Court of Appeal, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 Cal. App. 3d 401, 94 Cal. Rptr. 648, 1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flournoy-v-zeller-calctapp-1971.